In re Candice E. CA2/1

Filed 1/7/16 In re Candice E. CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

In re CANDICE E., a Person Coming B265130 Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. DK06846)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

GORDON E.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Marilyn Kading Martinez, Juvenile Court Referee. Reversed. Daniel G. Rooney, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_______________________________

Gordon E. (Father) appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating his visitation with his daughter Candice E. (Daughter), age 14. Father argues the juvenile court terminated his visitation without showing by specific facts how continued visitation would be detrimental to Daughter.1 We reverse. BACKGROUND Father and Mother (collectively Parents) began battling over custody of Daughter about a decade ago during their divorce. In 2008, a family court entered a custody order giving Parents joint legal custody and Father primary physical custody over Daughter. Over the years, Parents leveled serious accusations against each other about poor parenting and bad behavior. Related to Parents’ accusations, DCFS previously received several reports about Daughter’s welfare. After an investigation into the most recent report, DCFS filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 petition regarding Daughter on August 13, 2014.2 In the petition, DCFS alleged Father had inflicted serious physical harm on Daughter under subdivision (a), failed to protect her under subdivision (b), and caused her serious emotional damage under subdivision (c). At the August 13, 2014 detention hearing, the court removed custody from Father, placed Daughter with Mother, and ordered DCFS-monitored visits for Father. Daughter resisted visiting Father, however. Hoping to facilitate visitation, the court agreed at a later hearing after learning Daughter had begun therapy to expand Father’s visitation to include visits in a therapeutic setting. However, Daughter had remained steadfast in refusing to visit Father. At the end of the jurisdictional and dispositional hearting, the court initially orally ordered monitored therapeutic visits for Father, per DCFS’s original recommendation. When Mother’s counsel inquired as to the visits’ frequency, the court asked what was the current frequency. In response, Father’s counsel reported Daughter had refused to