From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

L. A. Cnty. Dep't of Children & Family Servs. v. J.S. (In re K.G.)

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division
Aug 25, 2023
No. B321547 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 25, 2023)

Opinion

B321547 B326087

08-25-2023

In re K.G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. J.S., Defendant and Appellant. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent,

Donna B. Kaiser, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Veronica Randazzo, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEALS from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. No. 21CCJP04657 Julie Fox Blackshaw, Judge, and Lisa A. Brackelmanns, Commissioner. Affirmed.

Donna B. Kaiser, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Veronica Randazzo, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

VIRAMONTES, J.

Mother filed two appeals in this matter. Mother first appeals from the juvenile court's jurisdictional findings and dispositional order, removing Daughter from her custody and placing her with Father. Mother's second appeal is from the juvenile court's order terminating jurisdiction and awarding Father sole physical custody and ordering monitored visitation. We consolidated the appeals and now affirm the juvenile court's orders.

BACKGROUND

The family is comprised of Mother, Father, and eight-year-old Daughter. The family has been the subject of numerous referrals to the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), each stemming from an alleged incident of sexual abuse by Father. The parents separated in 2018 and entered a stipulated family law court order giving Father monitored visitation and Mother primary physical custody.

I. Prior welfare referrals and law enforcement investigations

In November 2018, DCFS received two referrals that Father had sexually abused then three-year-old Daughter. Daughter complained to Mother that her" 'pee pee'" hurt and that "she squeezes [F]ather's 'pee pee' with her vagina." Daughter said," 'There was a big pow and daddy made pee pee everywhere, but not regular pee pee. It was messy, gross pee pee.'" Mother observed redness and chafing around Daughter's genital area. The findings of Daughter's physical examination were" 'completely normal'" and she was referred out for a sexual assault examination. DCFS found the allegations in the first referral were inconclusive and evaluated out the second referral.

In May 2021, DCFS received a third referral that Father had sexually abused Daughter. A dermatologist diagnosed Daughter with" 'molluscum,'" a contagious infection that children commonly have on their hands and face, but which was found on Daughter's buttocks. Molluscum was generally sexually transmitted between adults. The referral reported that Father had the same condition in 2017 or 2018 and that he was a" 'sex addict.' "

Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (LASD) deputies interviewed Mother and Daughter for suspected child abuse. Mother reported that Daughter had molluscum once before in August 2020, and was concerned that Daughter had contracted it from Father. Mother also reported that Father was a sex addict and had contracted the infection after he had intercourse with another partner.

Daughter told deputies she had a good relationship with Father, and that he never touched her inappropriately. She said that her genital area was private and that no one was allowed to touch it, and that no one had touched her inappropriately or physically hurt her. The deputies followed up with Daughter's dermatologist, who stated that it was uncommon to see molluscum on a child's genital area. However, he acknowledged that it could be transferred from shared items that were in contact with the skin. LASD could not determine whether Daughter had been sexually abused.

Daughter was forensically examined at UCLA Medical Center, which concluded: "Unfortunately, it is highly difficult to determine [the] source of [the] virus from physical exam alone," and "there is no diagnostic test to determine evidence of sexual abuse in the absence of additional findings of injury or disclosure." It further concluded that the findings were of unclear significance for any form of sexual abuse given Daughter's denials of any recent history of sexual abuse or injury.

DCFS concluded the allegations were unfounded based on Daughter's consistent denials, her dermatologist's report that molluscum could spread via shared items, and because Father's visits had been monitored.

In July 2021, DCFS received a fourth referral that Father sexually abused Daughter. Mother was concerned Father had inappropriately touched Daughter when she was three or four years old. The reporting party said she had seen Daughter occasionally for approximately three to four years, but this was the first time Daughter had reported sexual abuse. Daughter was concerned that the family law court would soon award Father unmonitored and overnight visits. Daughter had shown the reporting party two pictures that she had drawn, depicting her and Father in the shower together. Daughter said that Father looked at her in the shower, touched himself, and then" 'peed and went goopy.'" Daughter was unsure if Father had touched her inappropriately any other time. DCFS evaluated out the referral.

An LASD detective interviewed Daughter regarding the July 2021 referral. Daughter told the detective that Father touched her vagina with his elbow, and that he touched himself when "goopy stuff came out." During the interview, the detective noted that Daughter repeatedly asked," 'When are we gonna talk about these pictures?'" referring to the pictures of her and Father in the shower. After Daughter said that Father urinated in the shower, she said," '[We] do not know what it was.'" When the detective asked Daughter what she meant by "we," Daughter replied" 'I do not know.'" Daughter also said "we" when she spoke with an LASD deputy about the alleged sexual abuse, but then corrected herself and said she meant to say" 'I.' "

During that same interview, Daughter said she did not shower with Father. She also felt safe with Father and loved him.

The detective interviewed Mother, who accused the detective of condoning the alleged sexual abuse by Father. The detective described Mother as" 'not pleasant'" and believed she was trying "to put words into the [d]etective's mouth."

LASD closed the investigation because there was no new evidence and the allegations were the same as the prior allegations from May 2021.

II. Current referral and investigation

In August 2021, DCFS received a fifth referral that Father sexually abused Daughter. Daughter said that Father "shoved" a soap bottle and a bar of soap inside her vagina and anus while Daughter and Father were in the shower. She also said, Father "put a wash cloth between [Daughter's legs] while he was holding his private part until weird gooey stuff came out."

DCFS social worker Julie Oliver (CSW Oliver) responded to the referral. The reporting party told CSW Oliver that Daughter feared being alone with Father when she heard he would have unmonitored visits, and was experiencing stomach aches and feeling nervous on the nights before the monitored visits. Daughter demonstrated how Father touched her inappropriately in the shower when she was three years old. She also demonstrated how Father rubbed soap on and put a shampoo bottle into her vagina and anus. Daughter said that Father held his" 'hot dog' . . . and 'weird goo' started to come out of it." The reporting party believed Daughter was too young to provide a complete description of the sexual abuse at the time of the past referrals. Recently, however, Daughter described" 'bubbles of pop ups'" in her memory of the alleged sexual abuse.

CSW Oliver contacted DCFS social worker Karen Zambroni (CSW Zambroni), who investigated the past referral of Daughter's molluscum. CSW Zambroni had no concerns for abuse or neglect after Daughter denied Father touched her inappropriately. CSW Zambroni noted that Father promptly made himself available to DCFS and put her in contact with his therapist.

CSW Oliver interviewed Mother and Daughter. Daughter denied any physical abuse by either parent. However, Daughter was afraid of Father because he" 'touched [her] privates in a weird way.'" Although she did not remember when Father touched her inappropriately, she said that it happened in the shower at her paternal grandparents' house. Daughter demonstrated on a doll how Father touched her using a shampoo bottle. Daughter said Father rubbed the bottle on her" 'private part'" and then inserted the bottle into her vagina while she was facing the shower wall with her legs spread. Daughter said that Father repeatedly penetrated her with the bottle for three to four minutes, and demonstrated the length of time by turning on a fan and then turning it off, stating" 'It was like that long.'" Daughter told Father to stop and then he switched to penetrating her with a bar of soap, then did the same thing with a towel. When they were drying off, Daughter said that Father" 'put his private part in his hand-it looked like a hotdog,'" and that" '[t]here was clear [gooey] stuff coming out.'" Daughter was" 'very scared'" of Father and did not want to be around him because he" 'still doesn't believe he did it to me.'" Daughter preferred if she" 'never'" saw Father again.

We note the record is unclear whether Daughter meant to refer to her paternal grandparents or paternal greatgrandparents.

Mother told CSW Oliver that she had obtained an ex parte order from the family law court suspending Father's visits, but that "everyone thinks [Mother] is the problem." Mother always believed Daughter's allegations. Mother reported Father sexually assaulted her during their relationship and he was a sex addict.

CSW Oliver reviewed the investigations of the prior referrals. She spoke with DCFS social worker Kimetria Leonard (CSW Leonard), who investigated the 2018 sexual abuse allegations and had no concerns for Daughter's safety with Father. Daughter showed CSW Leonard how Father "loved her" by hugging a doll and denied any inappropriate touching. Daughter also" 'denied allegations made by [M]other, and denied telling [M]other that [F]ather touched her privates ....'" CSW Leonard found Father appropriate with Daughter and noted that his sexual addiction was unrelated to children. CSW Leonard explained that Mother had used a" 'manifesto'" that Father had written during his treatment with Mother during their relationship to fabricate the sexual abuse allegations against him. Mother's allegations" 'seemed vindictive'" and corresponded when she and Father separated, he cut her off financially, and entered into a new relationship.

CSW Oliver interviewed Father and Father's girlfriend. Father denied the sexual abuse allegations. While Father admitted that he was a sex addict, he was in treatment for his addiction. Father was upset that Mother was able to manipulate Daughter while she was with her and said that Mother filed an ex parte application in the family law court just before he was supposed to start overnight visits.

CSW Oliver made an unannounced visit to Daughter's school. Neither Daughter's teacher nor her principal had any concerns regarding abuse or neglect. When Daughter saw the social worker, she was hesitant to speak with her and asked what she was doing at school. She also asked why CSW Oliver did not "just text [M]other and meet with [Daughter] at home after school." While Daughter agreed to talk with CSW Oliver, she said," 'I don't want to talk about what we already talked about.' "

CSW Oliver interviewed Mother's former therapist, who specialized in treating adults with anxiety and trauma who were sexually abused as children. She had seen Daughter several times during Mother's therapy sessions, but Daughter never disclosed anything concerning and" 'just played.'" Although the former therapist did not have any experience working with children, Mother contacted her several months prior, asking her to see Daughter because Daughter had" 'started to talk.'" Daughter was scared of Father and did not want overnight visits with him. The former therapist stated:" 'I didn't even need to ask [Daughter] anything because she came with these drawings and said, "I want to tell you what happened. My dad was in the shower with me. He was touching himself and all this goo came out and then he touched me." There was no mention of penetration.'" The former therapist reported that during their first visit, Daughter said Father" 'touched down there and . . . nothing else happened.'" In a subsequent visit, Daughter said" '[Father] put "it" inside of me for a long time.' " Daughter was" 'crying when it happened'" and that she" 'told him to stop and he wouldn't.'" The former therapist thought it unusual that Daughter was "eager" to talk about the abuse.

CSW Oliver interviewed the detective who had responded to the allegations in July 2021. The detective was concerned for Daughter because Mother was unnecessarily subjecting her to multiple interviews regarding the alleged sexual abuse even though the first forensic interview, which came back" 'non-confirmatory,'" was meant to prevent that.

In September 2021, CSW Oliver attended an exam with Daughter, where Daughter was interviewed by a forensic nurse. Daughter said Father sexually abused her in the shower at the paternal grandparents' home. She was unsure how old she was when the abuse occurred but said" 'We think I was three.'" When asked what she meant by "we," Daughter explained she was referring to herself and Mother. Daughter described how Father penetrated her vagina with a shampoo bottle and a bar of soap for a" 'very long time.'" She said it hurt when it was happening, but that her vagina felt" 'fine after the shower.'" She also denied any vaginal pain or bleeding afterwards. Daughter was unable to provide any information about what happened after the shower. Daughter said, "[I have] fun with father, 'but I am acting like I'm having fun but I'm really scared.'" When the forensic nurse asked Daughter what Mother had told her about the interview, Daughter stated:" '[Mother] said to say all the details and then I can go play Donkey Kong.'" After the interview, the forensic nurse told CSW Oliver," 'I suspect a story is being told. [Daughter's] got it memorized and she is acting. When the child is asked what happened next or goes outside of the story she has memorized, the child is lost.' "

The day after the forensic interview, Daughter's former babysitter e-mailed CSW Oliver. The former babysitter identified herself as a mandated reporter and rape crisis counselor. Daughter told the former babysitter in 2018 that she feared Father and mentioned" 'yucky gooey stuff.'" More recently, the former babysitter said she spoke with Daughter on a videoconference call and provided CSW Oliver with a transcript of that call. During the call, Daughter recounted the alleged sexual abuse. Father penetrated Daughter with a bottle and a bar of soap for a "long time" while they were in the shower. Daughter demonstrated to the former babysitter the abuse by aggressively banging a shampoo bottle into a doll's genital area. At the end of the call, Daughter told the former babysitter that she wanted to tell her the" 'rest of the story, well well it's not a story, it's actually in real life but I'm telling you it now.' "

Mother said that Daughter was "acting out emotionally" after the forensic interview, and that she did not attend school for two days because she was "afraid someone was going to come and talk to her again." She also reported that Daughter had not seen a children's therapist, but she was "open to it."

CSW Oliver interviewed Daughter's family law attorney, who represented Daughter for a year and half, and who Mother believed "lied on the stand" and took "[F]ather's side on everything." The family law attorney had no concerns about Father and did not believe the sexual abuse allegations. She described Daughter as "very verbal, open, and observant," and reported Daughter" 'very much enjoys being with [F]ather.'" She said that Mother avoids her, and had not spoken to her about the recent sexual abuse allegations, and that Daughter's first forensic examination was reviewed by an evaluator, "but there was nothing there." She also reported that Mother does not allow Daughter to meet with her in person, only permitting videoconference calls where Mother can be present and listen. She believed that Mother would "do anything possible to thwart" Father's visits while Father" 'jumps [through] a lot of hoops'" to maintain his relationship with Daughter.

CSW Oliver spoke with Father's therapist. Father's therapist was not concerned about Daughter's safety with Father and believed Mother made the sexual abuse allegations using "a full disclosure [Father] made years ago" that Mother exploited in the family law court.

III. Petition and detention

DCFS filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Codesection 300, subdivision (c), alleging: "[Mother] has emotionally abused the child. Such emotional abuse consisted of [Mother] subjecting the child to numerous interviews regarding possible sexual abuse to the child by [Father], taking the child for continual medical checks for possible sexual abuse and telling the child to give false and misleading information to [l]aw [e]nforcement and [c]hild [p]rotective [a]gency employees about how the child is treated by [F]ather. Furthermore, [M]other's allegations of abuse to the child by [F]ather remain unsubstantiated. Such conduct by [Mother] places the child at substantial risk of suffering serious emotional damage as evidenced by severe anxiety, depression, withdrawal and aggressive behavior towards self and others."

Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

The juvenile court granted DCFS's request for an expedited removal order on the grounds that Mother coached Daughter to say Father was sexually abusing her. When Daughter was detained at school, she told social workers she did not want to live with Father. Father then arranged for Daughter to stay with his girlfriend at paternal great-grandparents' home while Father stayed elsewhere. Daughter felt safe with Father's girlfriend and paternal great-grandparents, and felt comfortable in their home. Daughter stated she was being genuine when asked if she was" 'just acting happy.'" She also told social workers that she would run away or hide in the bathroom if Father came to paternal great-grandparents' home" 'because dad doesn't go in the bathroom when someone is in there.' "

In a recorded conversation, Daughter told Father's girlfriend that she liked being with her because she" 'doesn't have to think about what to say.'" Mother got upset with her if she did not say the right thing, and made her" 'repeat things over and over'" until she got it right. Daughter's" 'brain [hurt]'" because she was "always trying to think of the correct thing to say." Daughter explained:" 'Sometimes, I don't know what to say and I get confused and it hurts my head.'" She said that Mother was smart and honest, and said," 'I have to tell people what mom says because she is telling the truth.' "

During that same conversation, Daughter walked Father's girlfriend over to a new shower that was not in the home when the alleged incident supposedly took place and said:" 'I don't know if you know, but something happened with my dad.'" She mentioned the shampoo bottle and the soap, and described how she told Mother, who reported it to the police and a doctor, but that they did not believe her. When asked if something happened, Daughter said:" 'I don't know if anything happened.' " When asked if she was afraid of Father, Daughter replied," '[Y]a, kind of.' "

Mother contacted DCFS and reiterated that Father was the perpetrator and that DCFS failed to conduct an adequate investigation of the allegations. DCFS explained to Mother that the allegations had been investigated and closed.

The juvenile court held a detention hearing, and released Daughter to Father, and ordered monitored visitation for Mother.

Mother e-mailed DCFS a "[r]ebuttal" to DCFS's detention report. Mother explained that Daughter's memory of the sexual abuse "came back" in late July 2021. Mother put Daughter in therapy, and Daughter was interviewed by law enforcement because she disclosed new details. Mother contacted the former babysitter, who interviewed Daughter on a videoconference call. Mother reiterated that she had filed an ex parte application to suspend Father's visits because Daughter felt ill on the days she visited him. Daughter had "some sort of a panic attack before taking a shower," and Mother had to put toys in the shower to comfort her. Daughter did not want to practice writing her last name because it reminded her of what Father did. Mother attached what she identified as Father's "manifesto" to the email, which included graphic disclosures by Father related to his sex addiction.

After a second detention hearing, the juvenile court maintained its prior findings, and ordered Daughter detained from Mother and released her to Father.

IV. Jurisdictional and dispositional report

DCFS filed a combined jurisdictional and dispositional report.

A dependency investigator (DI) interviewed Daughter. Daughter was comfortable in Father's care but missed Mother. When asked what she did not want to talk about, Daughter took a deep breath, looked around, and stated:" 'I am going to start with the important stuff .... I'm gonna start when we were in the shower," referring to her and Father. Daughter appeared to be "thinking hard" and took another deep breath before saying," 'Okay, I am trying to remember.'" She said," 'He did this . . . for a long time'" while rubbing between her legs and motioning up and down with her hands. When asked when this happened, Daughter said, "We think I was three," referring to her and Mother. When asked how she felt about the incident, Daughter said," 'I am trying to remember where I was at . . . I said stop, he said okay, he put down the bottle and he grabbed the bar of soap and then he did the same thing.'" When asked about the shampoo bottle, Daughter paused for a few minutes and said:" 'I am trying to refresh my memory. After he was done with the bottle, then he took and put a washcloth (child pointed to her private).'" Daughter denied any pain during the alleged incident and appeared "frustrated, confused, and lost" when asked what happened after.

Daughter denied that Father touched her inappropriately any other time. She was" '[a] little bit'" afraid of Father because she had heard that he was" 'going to do that again.'" When asked who told her Father was going to do "it again," she immediately said" 'Nobody told me to say that.'" When the DI followed up and asked why Daughter felt that way, she paused for a long time and said," 'He sits on the bed and reads me a book.'" When asked if Father touched her inappropriately, Daughter responded" 'So many questions.'" The DI apologized to Daughter and asked if there was anything else she wanted to say about her parents. Daughter responded:" 'She didn't tell me, I told her,'" referring to Mother. When asked how many times she told Mother, Daughter said she told her once and then Mother told her to" 'talk about it.'" When asked what Mother did after Daughter told her about it, Daughter said," 'She just said okay.'" When asked again what happened after she and Father got out of the shower, Daughter took a deep breath and said," 'I don't know, too many questions.' "

Approximately six weeks after detention, Father e-mailed DCFS, indicating Daughter was withdrawn and having difficulty listening to him. In one instance, Daughter pushed Father's arm away when he tried to comfort her. Another time, Daughter started screaming at Father when he was about to enter a room where his girlfriend was changing because he was "not allowed in there." There was another incident at a bookstore where Daughter had to use the restroom but refused to allow Father to take her. Even when Father assured her that he would wait outside for her, she refused to go.

Mother gave a statement for the jurisdictional and dispositional report. Mother believed Father" 'manipulated his story'" and was" 'not truthful about his sexual addiction history.'" She permitted Father to visit with Daughter after the parents separated in 2018. These visits were initially amicable; however, Daughter came home from a visit in 2018 and said something that led Mother to suspect Father sexually abused Daughter." '[Daughter] came home from a visit in 2018. She had a rash in her private area, I thought she did not rinse well. I used cream, it cleared up, couple of days later, [Daughter] was opening her vagina area, she said dad rubbed and then she said boom, took her hands and she gestured and said big pee pee mess.'" (Sic.) Mother reported the abuse to DCFS and there was a forensic interview. When Father found out that Mother had contacted DCFS, he" 'cut [Mother] off'" and filed for custody in family law court, where Father was awarded monitored visitation. The parents split the cost of a professional monitor. Father wanted to use paternal grandmother as a monitor but" 'there were a bunch of issues'" because Daughter was left alone with him and Daughter told paternal grandmother she was afraid he was" 'going to touch her private.'" When the family law court was set to order unmonitored visits, Daughter was "scared" and "there were bubbles that pop in her brain, she said a bottle and hurt." Mother took Daughter to a therapist and there was "random stuff . . . popping in her brain." Daughter wanted to talk to the therapist and kept saying "the goo comes out of daddy's penis."

The DI interviewed Father. Father denied that he was a pedophile or liked to have sex with children. He admitted that he was a sex addict, but that he was currently in treatment for his addiction and would never expose his children to it. He denied any sexual contact with Daughter. He reported that Daughter was sleeping and eating well since she was released to him. He reported Daughter was happy overall and playful despite throwing some tantrums.

Daughter's therapist reported that Daughter was not afraid of Father and that the parent-child relationship was fine. Daughter was having no issues sleeping, and the therapist believed Daughter was in a safe place. She observed Daughter to be mature for her age, open, engaged, and talkative. Daughter had not mentioned the sexual abuse allegations in their weekly sessions.

Father's friend and ex-girlfriend, who was dating Father when Mother first made the sexual abuse allegations in 2018, had never witnessed anything concerning between Father and Daughter. She trusted Father and allowed him to watch her three children even though their relationship had ended. She observed that Father understood appropriate boundaries with Daughter, as well as with Father's daughter from a previous relationship. Daughter told Father's ex-girlfriend that she had to say "bad things" about Father or she "was not going to see her mommy again." When the ex-girlfriend asked Daughter what she meant, Daughter was unsure if she could talk about it, and that she did not want to get Mother in trouble.

Father's other daughter was not a party to the proceedings below.

In February 2022, DCFS reported that Daughter was doing well and was having weekly supervised visits with Mother. However, Father was concerned with Daughter's behavior afterwards, reporting that Daughter "falls apart" and did not want to get up the following mornings. He said that Daughter missed Mother but that she was confused and had been rebellious and upset. Father shared his concerns with Daughter's therapist.

The DI contacted another one of Daughter's therapists, who reported that Daughter was consistently attending therapy. The therapist confirmed Father had shared that it took Daughter "about a day to bounce back from a visit with [M]other." The therapist had been working with Daughter to help her understand her feelings, explaining that her depressive behaviors after the visits were part of the grieving process. Otherwise, Daughter was doing well and learning appropriate coping and communication skills. The therapist's only concern was that Daughter seemed to care a lot about adult problems like finances.

V. Adjudication

The juvenile court held a three-day adjudication hearing. It admitted DCFS's reports and video recordings of Daughter's 2018 and 2021 forensic interviews. Mother and Father testified, as well as Mother's current therapist, and CSW Oliver. Father also called an independent psychiatric assessor who opined whether Father posed a risk to Daughter.

The juvenile court sustained the petition as pled. It found that Daughter's statements were the best evidence of Mother's coaching, particularly, Daughter's statements in the 2021 forensic interview, which were "so farfetched, that they simply [were] not credible." The juvenile court noted that, despite the severity of the alleged abuse, there was no physical evidence or any statement from Daughter that she experienced any pain, bleeding, or discomfort after the incident. Daughter's affect during the interview was "consistent with that of a child trying to state something she was expected to tell." Daughter was also unable to provide a coherent account of the events, notably, how she and Father were in the shower together, how the alleged incident concluded, what happened after it occurred, and what her feelings were during the alleged abuse.

The juvenile court found Mother lacked credibility, believing Mother was more motivated by her efforts to embarrass Father than her desire to protect Daughter. It also found that Mother's therapist lacked credibility after she repeatedly disparaged Father and refused to answer questions, even though there had been a waiver of physician-patient privilege. Contrastingly, the juvenile court found Father and the independent psychiatric assessor credible. Father admitted he was a sex addict, did not attempt to malign Mother during his testimony, and denied ever harming Daughter. The juvenile court gave the independent psychiatric assessor's findings considerable weight, agreeing that Father posed no risk to Daughter and his mental health history did not impede his ability to parent. The juvenile court concluded that the sexual abuse allegations were false, and there was no other reasonable explanation other than to attribute them to Mother's coaching.

In concluding that Mother's conduct placed Daughter at a substantial risk of suffering emotional damage, the juvenile court relied heavily on Daughter's words and demonstrations during the 2021 forensic interview. It found that Mother's coaching was "detailed, lurid, and violent, consisting of sexualized imagery beyond what would be considered appropriate for a child of five or six years old." It noted that it was "disturbing" to watch Daughter mimic the alleged sexual abuse in a portion of the 2021 forensic interview where Daughter repeatedly punched herself in the vagina.

The juvenile court concluded that Mother indoctrinated Daughter with false allegations of "vaginal penetration involving objects that are completely inappropriate for such activity," which would have resulted in substantial pain and physical injuries if they had been true. She then forced Daughter to repeat those false allegations to law enforcement, social services, and medical professionals. The juvenile court noted that Mother's conduct upset and confused Daughter, pointing to Daughter's complaints that her brain hurt from having to repeat the allegations over and over until she got them "right."

Nor had Mother accepted responsibility for subjecting Daughter to the numerous physical exams, repeated interviews, and unhealthy sexual imagery. Thus, the juvenile court concluded that Mother's behavior would persist because Mother had yet to recognize that she had done anything wrong.

VI. Disposition

The juvenile court's dispositional order removed Daughter from Mother's custody and released her to Father. It ordered family maintenance services for Father and enhancement services for Mother. It ordered Mother to participate in Parents Beyond Conflict, a parenting program, individual counseling with a licensed therapist, and conjoint counseling with Daughter if approved by Daughter's therapist. It also ordered Mother to complete an Evidence Code section 730 psychological assessment. It ordered monitored visitation for Mother for a minimum of nine hours a week with no unauthorized third parties permitted at the visits.

VII. Mother's psychological assessment and progress report

In July 2022, Mother completed a psychological assessment. The assessment consisted of a psychological questionnaire and an interview.

The assessment found that Mother remained "entrenched in her belief" Father sexually abused Daughter. Its conclusions were limited by Mother's defensiveness, and found that Mother's lengthy delay in starting the assessment process reflected "continued entrenchment" in a legal approach to the issues in this case. It found that Mother defended her belief that Father abused Daughter in 2018 based on Father's" 'pornography addiction'" and sexual assaults that were perpetrated on her by Father during their troubled relationship. While Mother was able to reasonably discuss the sexual abuse she believed took place in 2018, the assessment concluded that Mother was unlikely to imminently change her beliefs regarding the allegations, noting her views were strongly supported by her current boyfriend. However, with the appropriate treatment, Mother could "eventually accept" that her concerns about Daughter's sexual abuse were "misguided" given the conclusions by the juvenile court, DCFS, law enforcement, and numerous medical professionals. The assessment concluded that, given the history and the ongoing custody dispute, Daughter was "at risk of facing emotional challenges, even if [Mother] were to imminently or eventually accept that her beliefs regarding sexual abuse by [Father] to be misguided in nature." It suggested Mother and Daughter may benefit from conjoint therapy to assist them in processing the history of Daughter's alleged sexual abuse.

Mother completed the court-ordered case plan, a parenting program, a Parents Beyond Conflict class, and was participating in individual counseling. Mother's compliance with her case plan notwithstanding, she continued to insist that she did not coach Daughter and disagreed with the juvenile court's findings and orders.

DCFS provided information regarding Mother's visits with Daughter. Mother initially had no approved monitors available for visitation so DCFS provided a monitor and referred Mother to a visitation center. Mother was not receptive to the visitation center coach's input and was often defensive toward the coach's suggestions. As a result, Mother was in jeopardy of losing her visitation in August 2022, but the center reluctantly agreed to continue with the visits until October 2022.

Mother's visits were mostly uneventful, and Mother was engaged and affectionate with Daughter. However, in its October 2022 status report, DCFS stated that it had not liberalized Mother's visits due to a series of incidents that occurred during her monitored visitation time.

In March 2022, Daughter was having a difficult time saying goodbye at the end of a visit and pretended to be asleep which lasted 20 minutes. A social worker asked Mother if she was comfortable with Father taking the child out of her arms and Mother responded, "[Y]es, you carry her." That same month, Mother said that Daughter told her that Father left her home alone when he went out, and had cameras all over the home, including in Daughter's bedroom. The following day, DCFS followed up with the visitation coach who said," 'there was never a time they talked about anything like that.' "

In April 2022, Daughter was in a bathroom stall for 10 to 15 minutes before she asked Mother's help with wiping. Mother reported she observed redness. A social worker told Mother that if she believed the redness was due to abuse, Mother should contact the child abuse hotline. Mother responded that every time she contacted the hotline it seemed like she was punished and it got "flip[ped]" on her. Father took Daughter to urgent care that day and Daughter reported that she felt good the day after.

In June 2022, the visitation center program assistant reported that Daughter slapped Mother. Mother said the behavior was a result of Daughter being unhappy with Father and that Daughter was considering running away. Again, the monitor never heard Daughter discuss this during the visit. A social worker followed up with Daughter, who denied having thoughts of running away, and said her current happiness level was a nine on a scale from one to ten.

Father complied with his case plan, completing a Parents Beyond Conflict class, participating in individual counseling, and communicating with DCFS. He was attentive and protective of Daughter and provided for her basic needs. He believed it was important for Daughter to have a healthy relationship with Mother although Father had been late to several visits. Father said Daughter" 'needs both parents in her life.' "

Daughter was doing well in weekly individual counseling and benefiting from the structure implemented in Father's home. She wanted to live with her parents. She said she could" 'stick up for [her]self when things aren't right'" because she was older and more knowledgeable. She denied Father had touched her inappropriately.

Daughter's therapist did not currently recommend conjoint counseling for Mother and Daughter. Her recommendation was based on Mother's lack of interest to meet or openness to move in a positive direction regarding the relationship between Daughter and Father.

DCFS assessed the risk to the family of returning Daughter to Mother as moderate. It was concerned that, although Mother was in compliance with her case plan, the issues that brought the family to DCFS's attention had not been successfully mitigated, noting Mother had not accepted any accountability or demonstrated any meaningful progress. Accordingly, DCFS recommended terminating dependency jurisdiction with a juvenile custody order awarding Father sole physical custody with the parents sharing joint legal custody, and monitored visitation for Mother.

On October 13, 2022, DCFS filed its Notice of Review Hearing, reflecting DCFS's recommendation that the juvenile court should terminate jurisdiction with an order giving the parents joint legal custody, Father primary physical custody, and monitored visitation for Mother. Mother was served with the notice that same day.

VIII. Review hearing

On October 28, 2022, the juvenile court held a contested review hearing. Mother was present and represented by counsel. Mother filed an exhibit list. The juvenile court admitted Mother's documents and DCFS's reports into evidence, and found the parties had notice of the proceedings.

After hearing argument, the juvenile court followed DCFS's recommendation, terminating jurisdiction and awarding Father sole physical custody and joint legal custody with Father having tie-breaking authority. It ordered Mother's visits to be monitored by a mutually agreed-upon monitor or a professional monitor to be paid for by Mother. The juvenile court did not liberalize Mother's visits due to a concern that Mother would continue to expose Daughter to repeated interviews regarding false abuse allegations.

Mother's counsel indicated that the cost of a professional monitor was prohibitive and requested that Father bear half the cost. Father's counsel objected, noting that he was the Daughter's sole financial support and that his financial circumstances had changed. The juvenile court denied Mother's request. Mother's counsel subsequently filed a written objection to the juvenile court's orders, again raising the issue of the cost of a professional monitor, noting that Mother had not seen Daughter since the review hearing.

The juvenile court filed its custody order, awarding joint legal custody to the parents with sole physical custody to Father. It maintained that Mother's visits were to be monitored by a mutually agreed-upon monitor or a professional monitor paid for by her.

Mother timely appealed the juvenile court's jurisdictional and dispositional orders and subsequently appealed the termination order. We consolidated Mother's appeals for purposes of oral argument and opinion.

DISCUSSION

I. Jurisdiction and disposition

Mother's first appeal challenges the juvenile court's jurisdictional findings and dispositional orders, arguing they are not supported by substantial evidence. Mother argues that there was insufficient evidence that she coached Daughter or that the abuse allegations were false and, in any event, there was insufficient evidence that Daughter was at a substantial risk of suffering serious emotional damage. Mother also argues that there were reasonable available alternatives to removal that would have kept Daughter safe. We reject Mother's arguments.

a. Standard of review

We review the juvenile court's jurisdictional findings under section 300 for substantial evidence. (In re Natalie A. (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 178, 184.) We will uphold the juvenile court's findings" 'unless, after reviewing the entire record and resolving all conflicts in favor of the respondent and drawing all reasonable inferences in support of the judgment, we determine there is no substantial evidence to support the findings.'" (In re J.N. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1010, 1022.) "' "We do not reweigh the evidence or exercise independent judgment, but merely determine if there are sufficient facts to support the findings of the trial court." '" (In re I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 773.)

We also review the juvenile court's dispositional findings for substantial evidence; however, we must keep in mind that DCFS must satisfy the heightened standard of clear and convincing evidence. (In re V.L. (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 147, 154155.) We look to the complete record to see if there is "substantial evidence from which a reasonable fact finder could have found it highly probable that the fact was true." (Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 995-996.)

b. Applicable law

Under section 300, subdivision (c), a child comes within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court when he or she "is suffering serious emotional damage, or is at substantial risk of suffering serious emotional damage, evidenced by severe anxiety, depression, withdrawal, or untoward aggressive behavior toward self or others, as a result of the conduct of the parent." The juvenile court may intervene when: (1) parental action or inaction causes the emotional harm, i.e., when parental fault can be shown; or (2) the child is suffering serious emotional damage due to no parental fault, but the parent is unable to provide adequate mental health treatment. (In re Alexander K. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 549, 557.) Jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (c) is appropriate when DCFS proves: "(1) the offending parental conduct; (2) causation; and (3) serious emotional harm or the risk thereof, as evidenced by severe anxiety, depression, withdrawal or untoward aggressive behavior." (In re Alexander K., at p. 557.)

Evidence of past conduct can be probative of current conditions and assist DCFS in meeting its burden. (In re D.L. (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1142, 1146.) However, DCFS must still prove a nexus between the parent's past conduct and the current risk of harm. (See In re Roger S. (2018) 31 Cal.App.5th 572, 583.) There must be some reason at the time of the jurisdictional hearing to believe the alleged conduct will recur. (In re D.L., at p. 1146.) However, the juvenile court"' "need not wait until a child is seriously abused or injured to assume jurisdiction and take the steps necessary to protect the child." '" (In re S.R. (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 204, 219.)

After the juvenile court assumes jurisdiction, it "may limit the control to be exercised over the dependent child by the parent or guardian." (In re G.C. (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 257, 264; § 361, subd. (a).) However, section 361, subdivision (c)(1), provides a dependent child shall be taken from the physical custody of the parent with whom the child resides at the time the petition was initiated, only if the juvenile court finds clear and convincing evidence there "is or would be a substantial danger to the physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional wellbeing of the minor if the minor were returned home, and there are no reasonable means by which the minor's physical health can be protected without removing the minor from the minor's parent's . . . physical custody."

c. The jurisdictional findings were supported by substantial evidence

The record supports the finding that Mother coached Daughter to make sexual abuse allegations against Father, which placed Daughter at substantial risk of suffering serious emotional harm.

Mother indoctrinated Daughter with a lurid story of sexual abuse by Father; forced Daughter to repeat that story to law enforcement, social workers, and medical professionals; and subjected Daughter to forensic sexual assault exams. The allegations in this case were extreme, consisting of violent acts of sexual penetration by Father when Daughter was just three years old. Yet, nothing in the various forensic interviews or medical examinations corroborated the allegations that Father forcefully penetrated Daughter with multiple foreign objects. Indeed, Daughter consistently denied any pain or bleeding after the alleged sexual abuse. Her statements were also inconsistent, at times describing in great detail the alleged sexual abuse but then denying that Father ever touched her inappropriately.

Moreover, the record supported a finding that Mother coached Daughter. The forensic nurse believed that Daughter was telling a" 'story'" that she had" 'memorized.'" Daughter told other adults that her "brain hurt" because she always had to think of the right things to say, and that Mother made her repeat things over and over until she got them right. She said that Mother told her that she had to say the right things otherwise she would never see Mother again. She also said that she did not know what to say because she did not want to get Mother in trouble. As a result, there is ample support in the record for the juvenile court's finding that there was no other explanation for a child of Daughter's age to recount such graphic and violent details of sexual assault other than Mother's coaching.

The record also supported the finding that Mother's conduct placed Daughter in danger of suffering serious emotional damage. Daughter demonstrated sexualized self-harming actions by repeatedly punching herself in the vagina. Her descriptions of violent sexual imagery went far beyond what would be appropriate for a child of five or six years old. Mother's coaching caused Daughter to be "very scared" of Father, so much so that she initially refused to live with him, had issues showering and using the bathroom, and refused to spell her last name because it reminded her of Father. Daughter reported multiple times that she was confused, upset, and that her brain hurt because she was trying to think of the correct thing to say and feared that she would get Mother in trouble if she said the wrong thing.

Both parents reported Daughter was having behavioral issues because of the repeated interviews and investigations. Father reported that Daughter withdrew from him, did not listen, and pushed him away when he tried to comfort her. Daughter threw a tantrum and screamed at Father when she saw him enter a bedroom where his girlfriend was changing. She also refused to allow Father to accompany her to the restroom at a bookstore even after he assured her that he would wait outside for her.

Mother said Daughter was acting out emotionally after the 2021 forensic interview and refused to attend school because she was afraid someone was going to talk to her. She also reported Daughter had a panic attack before taking a shower.

Further, there were no signs that the emotional harm or substantial risk of harm would be mitigated absent juvenile court intervention. Mother's coaching persisted for years even after repeated findings that the abuse allegations were false. Between 2018 and 2021, Mother subjected Daughter to numerous forensic interviews and examinations, and showed no signs of stopping. Indeed, the first forensic interview was meant to spare Daughter from repeated interviews and examinations. However, Mother disregarded that safeguard, and continued to bring Daughter to different mandated reporters so that she could repeat the violent sexual abuse allegations.

Given this evidence, the juvenile court had an appropriate basis to assume jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (c), and find that Daughter was at risk of suffering emotional damage because of Mother's conduct. (See In re Christopher C. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 73, 84 [finding substantial evidence supported jurisdictional findings of emotional abuse based on parents coaching their children to make false sexual abuse allegations].)

Mother makes several arguments as to why the jurisdictional findings were not supported by substantial evidence. First, she argues that there was no evidence that Daughter was lying or that Mother coached her. However, as discussed above, Daughter's statements were farfetched and inconsistent, and there was no corroborating physical evidence. There was also no other explanation for Daughter's allegations other than Mother's coaching. While Mother argues that Daughter could have formulated the allegations after being exposed to "inappropriate sexual activity on tv (or elsewhere)," there was no evidence of that in the record. We are not permitted to "evaluate the credibility of witnesses, reweigh the evidence, or resolve evidentiary conflicts." (In re L.Y.L. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 942, 947.)

Second, Mother argues that her concerns were reasonable in light of Father's sexual history. However, Mother's argument requires us to ignore the juvenile court's findings, notably its finding that Daughter looked like a child "trying to state something that she was expected to tell." It also ignores the findings and conclusions from multiple forensic examinations and interviews, as well as Daughter's repeated statements that no one, including Father, ever touched her inappropriately.

Third, Mother argues there was insufficient evidence that Daughter suffered from serious emotional harm or that there was a substantial risk of harm. Mother is wrong. As discussed above, Daughter was already exhibiting behavioral issues because of the repeated interviews and examinations regarding the alleged sexual abuse. While there was no formal diagnosis of anxiety, depression, or some other emotional disorder in the record, the juvenile court need not wait until the child is harmed before asserting jurisdiction. (In re S.R., supra, 48 Cal.App.5th at p. 219.) Daughter was upset and confused by Mother's coaching, she had a panic attack before taking a shower, she was afraid of Father, and complained that her brain hurt because she was always trying to think of the right thing to say for fear that if she did not, she would get Mother in trouble or never see her again. Moreover, there was no sign that either Daughter's well-being or Mother's conduct would improve. In these circumstances, the juvenile court's finding that Daughter was at substantial risk of suffering serious emotional damage due to Mother's conduct was supported by substantial evidence.

Mother's reliance on In re Brison C. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1373 (Brison C.) is not persuasive. In Brison C., the child was caught in the middle of a bitter custody dispute between his parents in which each parent falsely accused the other of abusing the child. (Id. at p. 1375.) The juvenile court asserted jurisdiction, finding the child was suffering from serious emotional damage because of his parents' conduct under section 300, subdivision (c). (Ibid.) The child protective agency argued that the juvenile court's emotional damage finding was supported by evidence that the child suffered from occasional nightmares, feared his father, and stated he would commit suicide if he had to live with him. (Id. at pp. 1377-1378.) The Court of Appeal reversed the jurisdictional findings, concluding: "The evidence shows only that [the child], an otherwise reasonably well-adjusted child who performed well at school and displayed no serious behavioral problems, despised his father and desperately sought to avoid visiting him." (Id. at p. 1376.) It further found that there was no evidence of a substantial risk that the child would suffer serious emotional damage because both parents recognized the inappropriateness of their past behavior, expressed a willingness to change, and could appropriately express their frustration with each other. (Id. at p. 1381.)

Brison C. is distinguishable. It was critical to the Brison C. court's reversal that the parents acknowledged their bad behavior and showed a willingness to change. Here, Mother lacks such insight and has yet to acknowledge that her coaching was harmful to Daughter, insisting that her actions were reasonable and served only to protect Daughter. Brison C. court's conclusion that the child had not suffered or was not at risk of suffering emotional damage has also been called into question by other courts, including a different panel of this division. (See In re A.J. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1095, 1105 [questioning "the soundness of the Brison C. court's conclusion the minor displayed no signs of serious emotional damage"]; In re D.B. (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 613, 624 [same].)

We reject Mother's arguments and find that the juvenile court's jurisdictional findings were supported by substantial evidence.

d. The juvenile court's dispositional order removing Daughter from Mother was appropriate

Mother argues the juvenile court erred in removing Daughter from her custody because there was insufficient evidence that Daughter would be in substantial danger if returned to her care, and that there were reasonable alternatives to removal that could have protected Daughter. We disagree.

The juvenile court's order removing Daughter was supported by the record. The juvenile court appropriately found that Mother's behavior would persist as she had yet to recognize that she had done anything inappropriate. At the time of disposition, Mother had not accepted responsibility for subjecting Daughter to physical exams, repeated interviews, and unhealthy sexual imagery. Mother continued to make sexual abuse allegations against Father even after the investigations concluded.

The record also showed that Daughter was heavily influenced by Mother, believing Mother to be honest and repeating what Mother said so that she could keep Mother from being accountable. Given Mother's influence and DCFS's inability to constantly monitor Daughter in Mother's care, there was sufficient evidence for the trial court to conclude that no means short of removal would have protected Daughter from Mother's conduct. Contrary to Mother's assertions, "spot checkups" with Daughter, parenting classes, and following up with Daughter's therapist would not have protected Daughter when she was alone with Mother. DCFS's visits to Mother's home would only protect Daughter while a social worker was present.

Accordingly, we affirm the juvenile court's conclusion that no reasonable alternatives to removal existed that would have sufficiently protected Daughter.

II. Termination and custody order

Mother's second appeal challenges the juvenile court's termination order awarding Father sole physical custody and monitored visitation for Mother. She argues that the juvenile court abused its discretion when it granted Father sole physical custody, and asserts that she did not receive proper notice that the juvenile court would be making visitation orders at the review hearing. Mother's arguments are without merit.

a. Governing law and standard of review

Once a child has been adjudged a dependent of the juvenile court under section 300, "any issues regarding custodial rights between his or her parents shall be determined solely by the juvenile court . . . so long as the child remains a dependent of the juvenile court." (§ 302, subd. (c).) When the juvenile court decides whether jurisdiction should be terminated after placing a child with a noncustodial parent, the relevant inquiry is whether "continued supervision is necessary." (In re Maya L. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 81, 99.) For a child placed with a noncustodial parent under section 361.2, subdivision (a), the juvenile court need not consider whether "the conditions still exist which would justify initial assumption of jurisdiction under Section 300." (In re Janee W. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1444, 1450.) Under section 361.2, subdivision (b)(1), the juvenile court is authorized to enter an order transferring custody of the child to the parent with whom the child was placed and, if appropriate, grant visitation to the parent from whom the child was detained.(In re Maya L., at p. 101.)

The parties and the juvenile court proceeded under the incorrect assumption that the review hearing was governed by section 364, however, because Daughter was placed with a noncustodial parent, the review hearing was governed by section 361.2 and 366.21. (In re Maya L., supra, 232 Cal.App.4th at p. 101.) Nevertheless, because the standards applicable to review hearings for a child placed with a noncustodial parent under sections 361.2 and 366.21 or a custodial parent under section 364 are similar, the error was harmless. (See In re Janee W., supra, 140 Cal.App.4th at p. 1452 ["Even though the dependency court's findings were phrased in the language of section 364, not section 361.2, if the evidence on the appropriate issue was undisputed and supports a finding that there is no need for continued supervision, we may affirm the order terminating jurisdiction"].)

When the juvenile court makes a custody or visitation order under section 361.2, its" 'focus and primary consideration must always be the best interests of the child.'" (In re Jaden E. (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1283.) We review a juvenile court's decision to terminate jurisdiction and to issue a custody order for abuse of discretion. (In re C.W. (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 835, 863.) We will not disturb the rulings unless the juvenile court's determinations were arbitrary or capricious. (Ibid.)

b. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in awarding sole physical custody to Father

The record demonstrates that by the time of the review hearing, Mother had still not accepted responsibility for her actions. Mother's psychological assessment reflected as such. While the assessment found that Mother could eventually accept that her concerns regarding sexual abuse had been misguided, she remained entrenched in her belief that Father had sexually abused Daughter. The assessment further found Mother was unlikely to imminently accept her belief was wrong.

Indeed, Mother wrote the following response to her assessment." 'I have only done what I believed the right thing to do given what my child told me. I have acted reasonably, as any parent would to protect their child. There were many accusations, and lies perpetrated in the duration of this case.

I didn't coach my child, put any of her experiences in her head, or act vindictively in any way. The way this case has been handled has absolutely increased trauma to both my child and myself, and continues to do so. Punishing those who speak up, who contact DCFS, for simply believing their child and trying to call those who protect them is not appropriate. DCFS believing the smear campaign against me, without evidence (and contrary to evidence) is not an investigation, but a bias attempt to justify a particular outcome."

In addition to the assessment, there was evidence that Mother's problematic behavior continued at her monitored visits.

On one visit, Mother said that Daughter told her that Father left her home alone, and that he had cameras all over the house, including in Daughter's bedroom. The monitor, however, reported that nothing like that was ever discussed during the visit. Mother stated: "I believe [Daughter], I didn't 'coach' her, she told you all what he did and you took her and put her with him. She continued to try to tell you, and you've shown her no one cares. You have put her in a very vulnerable position. [¶] Are you waiting until another irreversible tragedy happens to my child before taking the appropriate action?"

At another visit, Daughter slapped Mother. Mother said Daughter's behavior was the result of her being unhappy in Father's care and that Daughter was thinking of running away from Father's home. However, again, the monitor never heard this discussed at the visit. DCFS followed up with Daughter, who denied that she had any intention of running away and said that she was happy living with Father.

Because of Mother's history of problematic visits, and her continued insistence that the abuse allegations were true, it was not an abuse of discretion to order sole physical custody to Father and monitored visitation for Mother.

Mother argues that Daughter could have been safely returned to her physical custody with the help of conjoint counseling. However, Daughter's therapist did not believe that it was appropriate to commence with conjoint therapy because Mother had not shown enough interest to begin meetings, nor was Mother open to moving forward in a positive direction regarding the relationship between Daughter and Father.

Accordingly, the juvenile court's decision to give Father sole physical custody and order monitored visitation for Mother was not an abuse of discretion.

c. The juvenile court's order for a mutually agreed-upon monitor or a professional monitor was not an abuse of discretion or a violation of due process

Mother's final contentions are with the juvenile court's order that she pay for a professional monitor if she and Father cannot agree to a monitor, and that she did not have sufficient notice that the review hearing would address monitored visitation and the cost of a monitor. Mother's contentions are without merit.

1. Governing law

"There is no doubt that due process guarantees apply to dependency proceedings." (In re J.P. (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 108, 125.) In the dependency context, due process entitles a parent to" 'notice that is reasonably calculated to apprise him or her of the dependency proceedings and afford him or her an opportunity to object.'" (In re R.A. (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 826, 835.) These rights must be granted at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. (In re R.F. (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 459, 470 .)

Here, Mother acknowledges that she knew that DCFS was recommending monitored visitation before the review hearing. DCFS's status review report, which was served on Mother weeks before the hearing, recommended that her visits should remain monitored. Mother was also aware that DCFS recommended terminating jurisdiction with a custody order awarding Father sole physical custody and monitored visitation for her. She also knew that monitored visitation may require her to incur additional costs for a professional monitor if she and Father could not agree on one. Previously, while Daughter was in her custody, the parents split the cost of a professional monitor when they could not agree on a mutual monitor. Thus, we find that Mother had sufficient notice that visitation would be addressed at the review hearing, and that the cost of a professional monitor would be addressed then as well.

With respect to whether Mother had a meaningful opportunity to respond, we find that she did. Mother's counsel asked for unmonitored visitation, as well as argued against Daughter's counsel's request for a professional monitor and Father's request that Mother bear the cost of a professional monitor. After the hearing and before the judgment was final, Mother's counsel lodged specific written objections to the juvenile court's custody and visitation order, but presented no new evidence or a basis for the objection other than to say the cost of a professional monitor was prohibitive. Thus, Mother had multiple opportunities to contest the juvenile court's order that she bear the cost of the professional monitor.

Mother's reliance on In re R.F., supra, 71 Cal.App.5th 459 is not persuasive. There, the juvenile court terminated jurisdiction and entered custody and visitation orders at a nonappearance progress hearing. (Id. at pp. 466-467.) There was no evidence in the record that the parent received proper notice of the nonappearance review hearing or notice that the juvenile court was considering modifying the custody and visitation orders. (Id. at pp. 472-473.)

In contrast, here, Mother received the notice of the review hearing and a copy of DCFS's report reflecting DCFS's recommendation for a professional monitor. She was present with retained counsel, who argued that Mother's visits should be unmonitored and that Father should bear half the cost of a professional monitor. Mother's counsel also filed written objections before the judgment became final.

Lastly, Mother argues that the juvenile court's order placing the cost of a professional monitor on her without holding an ability to pay hearing was not in the best interests of Daughter because she will be unable to visit Daughter without a professional monitor. We disagree with Mother's characterization of the juvenile court's order and the record.

The juvenile court's exit order stated that the Mother's visits were to be monitored by a professional monitor or a mutually agreed-upon monitor. Despite Father's objections to Mother's proposed monitors at the review hearing, the record shows that Father was open to Mother's suggested monitors, so long as they were approved by DCFS. It was not until the review hearing when Mother submitted a list of proposed monitors who were related to her boyfriend, and who were potentially exacerbating the issues in this case, that Father's and Daughter's counsel objected to those proposed monitors.

Thus, Mother has not shown that Father would never approve any monitor and categorically deny her visitation. Finally, even if Father does prevent Mother from seeing Daughter by continuously and unreasonably disapproving monitors, she may seek enforcement of the visitation order in the family law court.

Accordingly, we find Mother was afforded due process and there was no abuse of discretion.

DISPOSITION

The juvenile court's orders are affirmed.

WE CONCUR: STRATTON, P. J., GRIMES, J.


Summaries of

L. A. Cnty. Dep't of Children & Family Servs. v. J.S. (In re K.G.)

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division
Aug 25, 2023
No. B321547 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 25, 2023)
Case details for

L. A. Cnty. Dep't of Children & Family Servs. v. J.S. (In re K.G.)

Case Details

Full title:In re K.G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. J.S.…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division

Date published: Aug 25, 2023

Citations

No. B321547 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 25, 2023)