In re K.R. CA1/4

Filed 6/16/22 In re K.R. CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

In re K.R. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SAN MATEO COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, A162914 v. J.R., (San Mateo County Super. Ct. Nos. 20JD0068, Defendant and Appellant. 20JD0069, 20JD0070)

J.R. (father) appeals an order denying him visitation with his son, S.R., upon the juvenile court’s termination of dependency jurisdiction over J.R.’s minor children, K.R., N.R., and S.R. Father contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion under Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 362.4 by denying visitation. We affirm. BACKGROUND Mother and father have three children, K.R., N.R., and S.R.

All further undesignated statutory references are to the 1

Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise stated.

1

On January 17, 2020, the San Mateo County Human Services Agency (the Agency) received a referral alleging father had sexually abused K.R. for years. About one year prior, K.R. disclosed the abuse to mother. Mother reported that she confronted father, he admitted to sexually abusing K.R., and he promised that he would stop. Mother continued to allow father access to all three children. On January 22, 2020, father was arrested. During the arrest, father stabbed a police officer, resulting in father being shot. Father was incarcerated on a no bail bond and charged with unlawful sexual intercourse, lewd act upon a child, and attempted murder during his arrest. On January 27, 2020, a three-year criminal protective order issued prohibiting father from all personal, electronic, telephonic, or written contact with mother and the children. On January 29, 2020, the Agency filed petitions alleging the children were at risk of serious physical harm under section 300, subdivisions (b)(1) (failure to protect), (c) (serious emotional damage), (d) (sexual abuse) and (j) (sibling abuse), with all allegations stemming from the sexual abuse of K.R. and mother’s failure to protect. At the time, S.R. was nine years old. At the detention hearing, the court found the Agency established a prima facie case. Mother, the minors’ counsel, and the Agency objected to visitation with father. The court denied visitation and contact between father and the minors, finding contact would be detrimental. The children were placed with mother.