In re Robert R. CA2/2

California Court of Appeal May 23, 2025 No. B340813Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in ordering monitored visitation for the mother upon terminating dependency jurisdiction, as the court properly prioritized the children's best interests and their expressed fear of the mother due to past trauma.

Issues

Did the juvenile court abuse its discretion by ordering monitored visitation for the mother upon terminating dependency jurisdiction?
Was the juvenile court required to follow the Department of Children and Family Services' recommendation for unmonitored visitation?

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The juvenile court properly focused on the children’s best interests in fashioning the exit order.”

“The court also found the children were traumatized by Mother’s past behavior and genuinely afraid to be alone with her.”

“We cannot say the juvenile court exceeded the bounds of reason in requiring a monitor for Mother’s visits under these circumstances.”

Filed 5/23/25 In re Robert R. CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

In re ROBERT R., JR., et al., B340813 Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY Los Angeles County DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN Super. Ct. No. 23CCJP03318A, B, C AND FAMILY SERVICES, &D Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MONICA P., Defendant and Appellant;

G.A., SR., Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Kristen Byrdsong, Commissioner. Affirmed. David Dickey, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Monica P. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Jesse McGowan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Respondent G.A., Sr. Lori Siegel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Minors. ____________________ Monica P. (Mother) appeals the juvenile court’s order, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code1 sections 362.4, subdivision (a), and 364, subdivision (c), terminating jurisdiction over the children’s dependency cases. The order awarded sole physical custody over the children to G.A., Sr. (Father A.), joint legal custody to Father A. and Mother, and afforded Mother only monitored visitation. Mother raises a cognizable challenge only to the terms of visitation. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm. BACKGROUND These proceedings involve four of Mother’s children,2 Robert R., Jr., (born 2013), G.A., Jr., (born 2014), K.A. (born 2015), and Z.A. (born 2022). Father A. is the presumed father of each of the children. Robert has a different biological father, Robert R., Sr., but no relationship with him. The family came to the attention of the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) in September 2023. About three months before, Father A. had left the family home with the children and moved in with Paternal Aunt. Father A. did so out of concerns over the conditions of the family home, including a rat and cockroach infestation, and

In re Robert R. CA2/2

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

RICHARDSON, J.

CHAVEZ, J.

AI Brief