In re A.T. CA4/2
E076758
| Cal. Ct. App. | Oct 22, 2021Background
- Infant A.T. was detained after CFS received reports that parents repeatedly disciplined 10‑year‑old J.T. with a belt, placing A.T. at risk; parents admitted using physical discipline.
- Juvenile court initially ordered no contact between father (T.T.) and J.T., and supervised visits between father and A.T. (once/week, 2 hours) with CFS authorized to modify.
- At disposition the court loosened orders: father was granted unsupervised visits twice/week for A.T.; six‑month review was set.
- Social worker later reported father violated court orders (sharing visits with mother, mother performing caregiving during his visits, and an instance of J.T. sitting on father’s lap), and that father minimized his role in J.T.’s physical discipline.
- At the six‑month review the court reverted father’s visits to supervised once/week and ordered visits separate from mother unless progress in services justified liberalization. Father appealed.
Issues
| Issue | CFS (Plaintiff/Respondent) Argument | T.T. (Defendant/Appellant) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion by reverting father’s visits to supervised once/week and requiring separate visits | Court needed to protect child and enforce its prior orders after father’s violations and minimization of abuse; visitation may be modified consistent with child’s well‑being | Reversion was unnecessary because father had been visiting consistently without reported problems; restriction was not relevant or necessary to protect the child | No abuse of discretion; court properly balanced parental visitation against child safety and enforced compliance with orders |
| Whether reducing visits constituted denial of reasonable reunification services | No existing judicial finding on reasonable services at the March hearing; that determination is for the juvenile court | Reduction deprived father of reasonable services and prevented meaningful bonding with an infant | No ruling below to review; appellate court declines to make the reasonable‑services finding and affirms modification as within discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Natasha A., 42 Cal.App.4th 28 (1996) (juvenile court may order modification of reunification services, including visitation, at periodic review hearings)
- In re T.M., 4 Cal.App.5th 1214 (2016) (disposition orders must provide visitation as frequent as possible consistent with the child’s well‑being)
- In re S.H., 197 Cal.App.4th 1542 (2011) (appellate courts defer to juvenile court’s broad discretion on visitation issues)
- In re J.N., 138 Cal.App.4th 450 (2006) (high degree of deference to juvenile court’s discretionary decisions)
- In re Jennifer G., 221 Cal.App.3d 752 (1990) (juvenile court may define visitation rights and impose conditions to protect the child)