In re M.R. CA3

Filed 7/16/24 In re M.R. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Yolo) ----

In re M.R. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile C099304 Court Law.

YOLO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN (Super. Ct. Nos. JV20221201, SERVICES AGENCY, JV20221202)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

D.R. et al.,

Defendants;

N.R. et al.,

Appellants.

Minors M.R. and N.R. (minors) appeal from the juvenile court’s orders made at the six-month review hearing. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.21, subd. (e), 395.)1 Minors

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

1

contend that the juvenile court abused its discretion in reducing visitation with their father and requiring that visitation with him be supervised. M.R.’s opening brief also challenges the juvenile court’s decision to assign educational rights to his caregivers. Having reviewed the record, we find adequate support for the juvenile court’s decision to restrict visitation with father. We need not address M.R.’s challenge regarding educational rights, because, as his reply brief argues, that claim is moot following the juvenile court’s decision to restore those rights to his parents at the 12-month review. BACKGROUND On August 5, 2022, the Yolo County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) filed a dependency petition under section 300, subdivisions (b)(1) and (c) with respect to minors N.R. and M.R. The petition alleged that minors’ father D.R. (father) failed to provide adequate care, support, and supervision to minors in that he engaged in “persistent and pervasive” parental alienation of minors’ mother, J.R. (mother). Father undermined mother’s authority, encouraged minors to leave her home at great physical peril, and refused to coparent with her. N.R., who was then 13 years old, and M.R., who was then 16, engaged in dangerous and concerning behavior as a result. For example, while at mother’s home, minors stabbed her couch and bed with a knife, cut electronic cords, and held a knife to her. They ran away from her home repeatedly, refused to go to school, ran down the freeway, and scratched themselves in bushes to make it appear that mother had abused them. An evaluator appointed by the family court in a contentious custody dispute between the parents concluded that minors had been “overwhelmingly damaged.” The evaluator opined that father “pathologically alienated” minors and that minors’ relationship with mother had been significantly impaired, “perhaps even irrevocably.” The Agency alleged that mother was unable or unwilling to provide adequate care for her children in that minors’ behavior was beyond her control. When minors were interviewed by the Agency, they provided identical answers and spoke in a robotic tone. M.R., who has autism, looked to N.R. before answering.