In re A.A. CA4/1

Filed 12/30/25 In re A.A. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In re A.A. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D086583 SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, (Super. Ct. No. EJ04326A-C) Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ABEL A.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Michael P. Pulos, Judge. Affirmed. Richard L. Knight, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. David J. Smith, Acting County Counsel, Lisa M. Maldonado, Chief Deputy County Counsel, and Indra N. Bennett, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Abel A. (Father) appeals from the juvenile court’s August 14, 2025 dispositional orders involving dependents A.A. (born March 2021) and K.A. (March 2022). At the contested disposition hearing, the court found (1) by clear and convincing evidence the children should be removed from Father’s custody under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361(c); (2) his progress “toward alleviating or mitigating the causes necessitating placement has been none”; and ruled (3) he shall have “liberal supervised visit[s],” with the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency afforded the discretion to expand visitation including to overnights. Father’s sole contention on appeal is that the juvenile court abused its discretion when it refused to order unsupervised, structured visitation. We resolve this appeal by memorandum opinion (People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 851–854), and affirm. I. A. Father and Melissa A. (Mother) have two children, A.A. and K.A. In the year leading up to the Agency’s petitions filed under section 300(b)(1), the San Diego Sheriff’s Office received 12 service calls involving the family. They included two domestic violence incidents; four family disturbance calls due to arguments between the parents; a welfare check; Father’s violation of a temporary restraining order; a burglary report Mother made when Father took her car; and various “unknown trouble report[s] with arguing heard in the background.” The children’s older dependent half-sibling, G.B., told the Agency he “‘lost count’” of the number of times law enforcement had been to the family home, the parents fought “‘a lot,’” and when they fought, he and his siblings would remain in their bedroom.