Fresno County Department of Social Services v. Monica G.
236 Cal. App. 4th 654
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Child Ethan (born ~2006) was removed from mother Monica and placed with maternal grandmother Vera after allegations of sexual molestation and mother's methamphetamine use; juvenile court ordered reunification services but later terminated them.
- In 2012 the court selected legal guardianship with Vera as guardian and ordered one unforced, unsupervised monthly visit for Monica; dependency jurisdiction was terminated as to the children then wards of the guardianship.
- Monica later filed section 388 petitions seeking expanded visitation/custody after achieving sobriety and completing programs; the court reinstated dependency jurisdiction for Ethan and G.G. in Feb 2014 and ordered liberal visitation to be agreed between Monica and Vera, with visits not to be forced.
- Ethan refused visitation and declined to attend a therapist evaluation; after a contested hearing where Ethan testified he did not want to see Monica, the juvenile court ordered therapeutic supervised visitation but then terminated dependency jurisdiction without making a finding that visitation would be detrimental to Ethan.
- The Court of Appeal reversed, holding the juvenile court abused its discretion by terminating dependency jurisdiction while effectively delegating visitation control to the child and without a detriment finding, because Ethan’s refusal to visit constituted an exceptional circumstance warranting continued oversight.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court may terminate dependency jurisdiction when it previously ordered parental visitation but the child refuses to participate | The department: termination appropriate under §366.3(a) absent exceptional circumstances; court may end dependency and leave visitation enforcement to guardianship | Monica: child’s and guardian’s refusal to facilitate visitation are exceptional circumstances requiring ongoing dependency oversight to ensure visitation occurs | Court: Reversed — may not terminate dependency jurisdiction when visitation order won’t be honored absent a finding that visitation would be detrimental; child’s refusal constituted exceptional circumstances and court abused discretion by delegating visitation control to the child |
Key Cases Cited
- In re K.D., 124 Cal.App.4th 1013 (Cal. Ct. App.) (framework for §366.3 exceptional-circumstances review)
- In re Hunter S., 142 Cal.App.4th 1497 (Cal. Ct. App.) (importance of visitation to parent-child relationship post-reunification)
- In re S.H., 111 Cal.App.4th 310 (Cal. Ct. App.) (court must ensure visitation ordered will in fact occur; cannot delegate control to third parties)
- In re Julie M., 69 Cal.App.4th 41 (Cal. Ct. App.) (ultimate supervision and control over visitation must remain with the court)
- In re Stephanie M., 7 Cal.4th 295 (Cal. 1994) (standards for §388 petitions to modify prior dependency orders)