S.J. v. Superior Court CA4/2 (2025) · DecisionDepot
S.J. v. Superior Court CA4/2
California Court of Appeal Jul 18, 2025 No. E085969Unpublished
Filed 7/18/25 S.J. v. Superior Court CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
S.J.,
Petitioner, E085969
v. (Super.Ct.Nos. J297058 & J297059) THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, OPINION
Respondent;
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Real Party in Interest.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ. Cara D. Hutson,
Judge. Petition denied.
Denise Adigun for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Tom Bunton, County Counsel, and Landon Villavaso, Deputy County Counsel,
for Real Party in Interest.
1
INTRODUCTION
Petitioner S.J. (mother) filed a petition for extraordinary writ pursuant to
California Rules of Court, rule 8.452 challenging the juvenile court’s order
terminating reunification services as to her children, D.J. and L.J. (the children),
and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 366.26 hearing. She
contends: (1) the San Bernardino County Department of Children and Family
Services (CFS) failed to ensure she received visitation as part of her reunification
services; (2) the court erred in admitting transcripts as evidence after granting her
motion for mistrial; and (3) the court erred in finding it would be detrimental to
return the children to her care. Mother requests a temporary stay of the section
366.26 hearing, pending the granting or denial of her writ petition. We deny the
request for a stay and deny the writ petition.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On May 9, 2023, CFS filed a section 300 petition, alleging that the children
came within the provisions of subdivisions (a) (serious physical harm), (b) (failure
to protect), (d) (sexual abuse), and (j) (abuse of sibling). At that time, L.J. was
three years old and D.J. was seven years old. The petition alleged that mother
failed to protect the children since she let De.J. (father)2 physically abuse them.
Also, father sexually abused the children’s adult sibling, R.J. when she was a
1 All further statutory references will be to the Welfare and Institutions Code, unless otherwise indicated. 2 Father is not a party to this writ petition. 2
minor, and mother allowed father access to the children despite knowing of the
sexual abuse.
The court held a detention hearing on May 10, 2023. Mother appeared and
informed the court that she and father had been married for over 20 years and were
living together. The court detained the children in foster care and ordered
predisposition services for mother and father (the parents). The court ordered no
visitation for the parents, pending evaluation by the Children’s Assessment Center
(CAC).
Jurisdiction/Disposition
On May 23, 2023, the social worker filed a jurisdiction/disposition report.3
The social worker reported that father denied the allegations of physical and
sexual abuse and that mother was in denial about the concerns regarding the
alleged sexual abuse. The social worker attached a CAC report which stated that
CFS had reported that D.J.’s older sibling disclosed she was abused by father from
ages 15 to 18, that father kicked and punched the children, and that mother
emotionally abused the children by calling them names. Furthermore, the social
worker who accompanied D.J. to the CAC evaluation reported that D.J. disclosed
that father would strike him and L.J. with a belt, and mother would hit him and
L.J. with her hand.
3 The report included the children’s older siblings — Dom.J., A.J., and Don.J. — who are not subjects of this writ petition. 3
On May 31, 2023, the court held a jurisdiction/disposition hearing. The
court granted a continuance, at county counsel’s request, to allow for additional
discovery. The court order supervised visitation between the children and the
parents, once a week, upon completion of all CAC evaluations.
The court continued the matter again on August 8, 2023 and October 11,
2023.
On August 8, 2023, the social worker filed an addendum report
recommending that the court sustain the petition, remove the children from the
parents’ custody, and bypass their reunification services pursuant to section 361.5,
subdivision (b)(6). The social worker reported the children were currently in the
care of the paternal grandmother and were doing well. The social worker further
reported that supervised visitation between the parents and the children began on
July 14, 2023, and the parents were observed to be appropriate, and they visited
consistently. The children also had supervised phone calls with them. The
caretaker had concerns with transporting the children from Los Angeles to San
Bernardino for visits with the parents, so the parents said they would be willing to
travel to a central location, in order to ensure there were no hindrances to the
visits.
The social worker reported that she interviewed the children’s adult sibling,
R.J., on August 6, 2023. R.J. said father abused her from ages 15 to 17. She said
she had intercourse with him over 200 times, and he had sex with her seven days a
4
week, unless she was on her period. R.J. said that mother would hide in her
bedroom and allow father to do whatever he wanted. R.J. was very concerned that
if the children were returned to the parents’ care, they would be subject to sexual
abuse. The social worker reported that the parents continued to deny the sexual
abuse. She further reported that the children were physically abused while in the
parents’ care, as evidenced by the disclosure of D.J. in his forensic interview and
L.J. “having patterned scarring and bruising on her leg suspicious of a grab mark.”
On November 3, 2023, the social worker filed an addendum report and
stated the parents were referred to predisposition services, and on September 26.
2023, they completed a parenting education program. Mother’s parenting
instructor expressed that mother said numerous times she already knew the
material, but later became more receptive to the material being taught. Mother
also participated in individual therapy, and the clinician stated that mother was an
educated woman who did not appear to be someone who would be unaware of
sexual abuse occurring in the home. The social worker further reported that R.J.’s
sister, B.J., acknowledged the parents’ abusive behavior and the negative impact it
had on all the family members.
As to visitation, the social worker reported that the court initially ordered
supervised visits once a week for two hours, beginning on July 14, 2023.
However, since then, several visits had been missed for various reasons; thus, the
parents agreed to change the schedule to biweekly visits, starting on November 4,
5
2023. During visits in August 2023, the parents were observed to be well-
prepared and engaged.
The social worker continued to recommend no reunification services for the
parents, noting they continued to deny all allegations of abuse despite the detailed
disclosures of sexual abuse by R.J. Although they had completed parenting
education and some individual counseling, the social worker opined that they had
not benefitted from the services, as evidenced by their continued denial.
The court held a jurisdiction/disposition hearing on November 14, 2023.
County counsel asked to dismiss some of the allegations and find true the
remaining allegations, which the court granted. Father was called as a witness and
testified that he physically disciplined the children and had used a belt and his
hand to hit them. He said he was the main person who used physical discipline on
the children, and mother may have “tapped” or “slapped” them with her hand once
or twice.
R.J., who was 23 years old, also testified. She said that mother called her
names like “whore” and “slut” and that father raped her. She testified that he
started sexually abusing her when she was 15, and that they mainly had sex “in the
downstairs area in the living room, on the sofa, on the floor.” R.J. testified that the
first person she told about the sexual abuse was her ex-boyfriend and that she also
told mother.
6
Mother testified as well. She testified that R.J. told her father was sexually
abusing her, but mother thought she was lying. Mother said she did not think the
children were unsafe in her care prior to their removal. She also did not think that
she or father posed a risk to them, that she did not see herself ever leaving father,
and that she did nothing wrong to warrant the children’s removal.
County counsel asked to play an audio recording in court for impeachment
purposes, and the court ordered her to provide a transcript prior to the recording
being played in court. The audio recording was from a time when law
enforcement went to the home and interviewed several individuals, including
mother. CFS filed a motion memorandum regarding the impeachment evidence
and attached excerpts from the transcript. The court ordered county counsel to
provide the transcript of the entire interview, and stated it would listen to the audio
recording and highlight the portions where mother appears. The court continued
the hearing.
On June 26, 2024, mother’s counsel asked to be relieved as counsel because
she was retiring. The court held a hearing and mother’s counsel asked the court to
declare a mistrial, based on her retirement. The court denied the request (without
prejudice) as premature, relieved her as counsel, and appointed new counsel. New
counsel subsequently asked to be relieved, and the court appointed a third counsel.
Mother’s third appointed counsel was relieved on July 2, 2024, as mother had
retained private counsel. At that hearing, mother’s new counsel informed the
7
court that many visits had been missed due to the caretaker; thus, the court ordered
make-up visitation for the visits that were missed, through no fault of the parents.
The court held a hearing on August 16, 2024. Mother’s counsel filed a
motion for mistrial, based on her coming on board mid-trial. She asked the court
to not allow the transcripts from the prior hearings to come in. Mother’s counsel
specifically argued against allowing the transcripts of the testimonies of mother
and R.J. She stated, “And if the Court does allow the transcripts in, I’m going to
ask for leave to re-examine [R.J.] and to re-examine Mother.” The court stated,
“The transcript is in evidence. I’m the trier of fact. I know what has gone on.”
The court then granted mother’s motion and declared a mistrial, and it ruled that
the transcripts would come in. The court added that if counsel was concerned with
any part of the transcripts, she could call that witness back into court as her
witness. The court urged mother’s counsel to read the transcripts thoroughly.
On September 16, 2024, the court held another jurisdiction/disposition
hearing. County counsel resubmitted the social worker’s reports into evidence.
With respect to jurisdiction, the parents waived their rights and pled no contest.
The parties stipulated to amended allegations, and the court sustained the amended
petitions. The amended allegations included that mother failed to protect the
children, in that she allowed father to use excessive discipline on them, that R.J.
reported she was sexually abused by father multiple times thereby putting the
children at similar risk, and that mother knew R.J. reported she was sexually
8
abused by father but continued to allow him access to the children. Regarding
disposition, the social worker continued to recommend no reunification services,
removal from the parents’ custody because there was substantial danger to the
health and safety of the children if they were returned home, in that the children or
their sibling had been sexually abused and they were at substantial risk of being
sexually abused, and that the extent of progress made by mother in alleviating the
causes necessitating removal had been insufficient. Mother was in agreement with
the proposed findings and orders. Counsel for father and the children also
submitted on the proposed findings and orders. The court bypassed reunification
services for father under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(6), finding the evidence
showed he sexually abused R.J. and physically abused the children. The court
declared the children dependents, removed them from the parents’ custody, placed
them with the paternal grandmother, and ordered reunification services for mother.
The court also ordered supervised visitation once a week.
Eighteen-month Status Review
The social worker filed an 18-month status review report on October 28,
2024, recommending that services be terminated and a section 366.26 hearing be
set. The social worker reported that the court ordered mother to participate in
individual counseling, and mother had completed five sessions. Mother
acknowledged that her adult daughter said she was sexually abused, and that she
(mother) did not report it to law enforcement and placed all her children at risk.
9
The clinician stated that mother had taken responsibility for not protecting the
children. Mother said she would ensure the children’s safety and protection, and
said she and father were no longer together. As to visitation, both mother and the
children reported that visits were going well.
The social worker stated that mother had just begun to accept the concerns
that led to the children’s removal in the past month, and she had not demonstrated
her protective capacity for the majority of the case. The social worker also noted
that father had only been out of the home for one month; thus, she could not assure
that mother would take the steps necessary to keep him out of the home and ensure
the safety and well-being of the children. Therefore, the social worker concluded
it was not safe to return the children home.
The court held a contested 18-month review hearing on April 16, 2025.
County counsel requested to admit into evidence all the social worker’s reports
written thus far and the transcripts from the previous hearings. Mother’s counsel
again objected to the admission of the transcripts, but the court overruled the
objection and admitted the requested documents. Mother’s counsel called the
supervisor of mother’s visits as a witness. The person who supervised the visits
had been friends with mother for 17 years. She said she started supervising visits
in June 2024, that mother visited consistently every week unless she (the
supervisor) could not make it, and that the children were excited to see mother at
the visits.
10
A therapist who had met with mother for nine sessions also testified. The
therapist said mother told her she did not physically discipline her children, and
she was unaware that father physically disciplined them. Mother also indicated
that father had left the home, and she was going to implement a safety plan. The
therapist said mother appeared to understand the safety plan to protect the
children. On cross-examination, the therapist testified that mother never told her
she believed that father sexually abused her children.
One of the social workers who worked on mother’s case also testified. She
said she did not believe the children could be safely returned to mother’s custody
at that time because mother did not think she was a part of the abuse; thus, she had
not taken responsibility for her part. The social worker opined that mother had not
benefitted from her services since acknowledging the existence of abuse was the
first step. Furthermore, mother did not believe father posed a risk to the children.
The social worker also testified there was reason to believe mother and father
remained in a relationship since they were still legally married. She testified that
mother had a history of trying to be deceptive. When asked if she believed mother
could start having unsupervised visits, the social worker said no because mother
did not believe she had any issues or was part of the problem.
Finally, a supervising social worker testified. He testified that mother had
been provided with services, starting at the inception of the case; nonetheless, she
denied everything. The social worker was concerned with mother not protecting
11
the children and what mother would do without the court directing her after it
closed the case.
After hearing the testimonies and argument from counsel, the court stated it
was convinced that mother did not believe any child that said they were abused by
father or her. The court acknowledged R.J.’s testimony about being sexually
abused, noting that it was legitimate and disturbing. The court then found that
mother had failed to make substantive progress in her case plan and reasonable
services had been provided. The court found that return of the children to mother
would create substantial risk of detriment to their safety, protection or
physical/emotional well-being. The court terminated reunification services but
found it was not in the children’s best interests to terminate parental rights, so it
set a section 366.26 hearing, limited to legal guardianship.
DISCUSSION
I. The Court Properly Found That Mother Was Provided With Reasonable
Services, Including Visitation
Mother contends she was not provided with reasonable services since CFS
failed to ensure she received visitation. We conclude the record shows she had
consistent visitation with the children.
A. Standard of Review
“On appeal, it is our task to determine whether the record discloses
substantial evidence which supports the juvenile court’s finding that reasonable
12
services designed to aid the parent in overcoming the problems which led to loss
of custody were provided or offered.” (In re Joanna Y. (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 433,
439.) “In reviewing the reasonableness of the services provided, this court must
view the evidence in a light most favorable to the respondent. We must indulge in
all legitimate and reasonable inferences to uphold the verdict. If there is
substantial evidence supporting the judgment, our duty ends and the judgment
must not be disturbed.” (In re Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 545.)
B. Mother Had Consistent Visitation
Mother contends she was not provided with reasonable services since CFS
failed to comply with the court’s visitation order. She complains that the caregiver
interfered with the visits, and CFS placed the children in an out-of-county
location. However, mother then states that her visitation with the children “was
regular and appropriate, except for the interference and lack of cooperation by the
caretaker.”
Mother correctly states that her visits were “regular and appropriate.” The
record shows the court ordered supervised visitation once a week and visits began
on July 14, 2023. Mother visited consistently and was observed to be appropriate.
The children also had supervised phone calls with her. Although the record does
indicate some visits were missed due to the children’s activities or the caretaker
being unable to accommodate the visits, the record shows the court ordered make-
up visits for the ones that were missed. Moreover, when the caretaker raised
13
concerns about transporting the children long distances to visits, mother said she
would be willing to travel to a central location in order to ensure there were no
hindrances to the visits. The record also shows that when weekly visits were
being missed, mother agreed to change the schedule to biweekly visits. Further, at
the 18-month review hearing, mother testified that she had visits with the children
and that some of the missed visits were made up.
Thus, the record shows that mother had consistent visitation with the
children, and substantial evidence supports the court’s finding that reasonable
services were provided in this regard.
II. Mother has Waived Objection to the Admission of the Transcripts
Mother contends the court erred in admitting transcripts as evidence, after
granting her motion for mistrial. She argues that, since her new counsel was
coming on board mid-trial, counsel needed to be able “to observe if a witness is
acting strange . . . or doing any actions that may indicate the witness is not being
truthful when answering some questions.” Mother argues that “[f]orcing counsel
to rely on previous testimony garnered by previous counsel . . . is definitely a
violation of mother’s due process and concerns of incompetent counsel.” Finally,
mother claims that the proper ruling “would be for the court to grant the Motion
for Mistrial AND exclude the transcripts, the only way to ensure equity of the
proceedings.” We conclude that the claim has been waived.
14
We initially note that this case is currently before the court on a petition for
extraordinary writ pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.452 challenging
the juvenile court’s order terminating reunification services as to her and setting a
Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing. The admission of the
transcripts which mother claims was error occurred at the combined jurisdictional
and dispositional hearing.
The dispositional order is the first appealable order in a dependency case.
(In re Athena P. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 617, 624.) “[A]ny challenge to the
jurisdictional findings [or in the proceedings leading to those findings, including
the admissibility of evidence] would have to be raised in an appeal from the
dispositional order. [citation] Failure to appeal from an appealable dispositional
order waives any substantive challenge to the jurisdictional findings.” (Ibid.)
Thus, mother may not now appeal the admissibility of transcripts occurring at the
combined jurisdictional and dispositional hearing.
III. The Court Properly Found That Return of the Children to Mother Would
Create a Substantial Risk of Detriment
Mother argues there was insufficient evidence of a substantial risk of
detriment to the children if returned to her custody, at the 18-month hearing. We
disagree.
15
A. Relevant Law
Section 366.22, subdivision (a) provides, in relevant part: “After
considering the admissible and relevant evidence, the court shall order the return
of the child to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian unless the
court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the return of the child to his
or her parent or legal guardian would create a substantial risk of detriment to the
safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child. The social
worker shall have the burden of establishing that detriment.”
This court views the record to determine whether substantial evidence
supports the court’s finding that the children would be at substantial risk
of detriment if returned to mother’s custody. (In re Yvonne W. (2008) 165
Cal.App.4th 1394, 1400-1401 (Yvonne W).) “In so doing, we consider the
evidence favorably to the prevailing party and resolve all conflicts in support of
the trial court's order.” (Id. at p. 1401.) “In the presence of substantial evidence,
appellate justices are without the power to reweigh conflicting evidence and alter a
dependency court determination.” (Constance K. v. Superior Court (1998) 61
Cal.App.4th 689, 705.)
B. The Evidence Was Sufficient
In the instant case, there was substantial evidence of the risk of requisite
detriment if the children were returned to mother. The evidence showed that she
did not properly protect the children when they were in her custody, The court
16
found true the allegations that mother failed to protect them in that she allowed
father to use excessive discipline on them, she knew R.J. reported that father
sexually abused her multiple times and continued to allow him access to the
children, and the children were at similar risk of sexual abuse. Although mother
completed a parenting program and participated in therapy, the evidence showed
she did not benefit from it. “[S]imply complying with the reunification plan by
attending the required therapy sessions and visiting the children is to be considered
by the court; but it is not determinative. The court must also consider the parents'
progress and their capacity to meet the objectives of the plan; otherwise the
reasons for removing the children out-of-home will not have been ameliorated.”
(In re Dustin R. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1131, 1143.) Mother denied the sexual
abuse throughout the case. However, the evidence showed that R.J. was sexually
abused by father over 200 times over several years, and R.J. said mother would
hide in her bedroom and allow father to do whatever he wanted.
Notably, at the November 14, 2023 jurisdiction/disposition hearing, mother
testified R.J. told her that father was sexually abusing her, and mother thought she
was lying. Mother said she did not think the children were unsafe in her care prior
to their removal or that father posed a risk to them. She also said she did not see
herself ever leaving him and that she did nothing wrong. By the time of the 18-
month review hearing, mother merely acknowledged that R.J. said she was
sexually abused. Moreover, the therapist testified that mother never told her she
17
believed father sexually abused her children. Additionally, one of mother’s social
workers testified that she did not believe the children could be safely returned to
mother’s custody at that time because mother did not think she was a part of the
abuse and had not taken any responsibility. The supervising social worker also
testified and said that mother had received services since the inception of the case,
yet she still denied everything. The supervising social worker was similarly
concerned with mother not protecting the children if returned home.
Ultimately, the record supports the court’s finding that mother did not
believe any of her children had been abused by father. Accordingly, the court
could reasonably assume she would not be protective of the children. Thus, we
conclude that substantial evidence supports the court’s finding that the children
would be at substantial risk of detriment if returned to her custody.
18
DISPOSITION
The writ petition is denied. The request for a temporary stay of the section
366.26 hearing is also denied.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
FIELDS J.
We concur:
MILLER Acting P. J.
MENETREZ J.
19
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court denied the mother's writ petition, finding that substantial evidence supported the termination of reunification services and the finding that returning the children to her custody would create a substantial risk of detriment.
Issues
Did the juvenile court provide reasonable reunification services, specifically regarding visitation?
Did the juvenile court err in admitting transcripts from prior hearings after granting a mistrial?
Was there sufficient evidence to support the finding that returning the children to the mother would create a substantial risk of detriment?
Disposition. denied
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“The record shows that mother had consistent visitation with the children, and substantial evidence supports the court’s finding that reasonable services were provided in this regard.”
“The court found that return of the children to mother would create substantial risk of detriment to their safety, protection or physical/emotional well-being.”
“The court terminated reunification services but found it was not in the children’s best interests to terminate parental rights, so it set a section 366.26 hearing, limited to legal guardianship.”