Marriage of C.D. and G.D. CA2/6

Filed 11/20/23 Marriage of C.D. and G.D. CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

In re Marriage of C.D. and 2d Civil Nos. B322858, G.D. B325287 (Super. Ct. No. D388847) (Ventura County)

C.D.,

Appellant,

v.

G.D. et al.,

Respondent.

C.D. (Mother) appeals from the postjudgment order granting G.D. (Father) therapeutic visitation with their minor daughters and modifying a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) to permit such visitation. Mother contends the therapeutic visitation order must be vacated because she has exclusive authority to determine whether to permit such visitation, Father did not obtain joint custody of his daughters

before seeking the order, and Father has not shown that therapeutic visitation would be in the girls’ best interests. She contends the DVRO modification must be vacated because Father did not provide adequate notice and there is insufficient evidence to support modification. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Mother and Father married in 2013. Their twin daughters, F.D. and S.D., were born four years later. Soon thereafter, Mother petitioned to dissolve the marriage. The trial court approved the dissolution petition and, after finding that Father had sexually abused F.D. and S.D., granted Mother sole legal custody. The court also barred Father from visiting his daughters, and entered a DVRO forbidding him from contacting them for five years. We affirmed the judgment on appeal. (In re Marriage of C.D. & G.D. (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 378, 387.) While that appeal was pending, Father requested that the trial court stay the visitation provisions of the judgment and DVRO to permit him weekly therapeutic visits and twice-weekly supervised visits with his daughters. Therapeutic visits consist of visits between the parent and the child, supervised by a therapist or professional supervisor, as agreed upon by the child’s therapist and minor’s counsel. In a declaration attached to his request, Father said that he had not molested his daughters and that visitation was in their best interests because it would ensure “that there [would] not be an extended interruption to their relationship with” him. Prior to the hearing on Father’s request, a mediator with expertise on family custody issues recommended that the trial court grant Father’s request for therapeutic visitation with F.D. and S.D. At the hearing F.D. and S.D.’s appointed counsel said