In re J.B. CA4/1, D078241

Minor was removed from parents in 2018 for parental substance abuse, mental-health issues, domestic violence, and concerns about Father's gambling; reunification services were later terminated and parental rights were terminated in August 2020.
On the day of the contested section 366.26 hearing caregivers sought restraining orders against both parents and asked they stay 100 yards from Minor, caregivers, and the nanny.
At a hearing caregivers testified about past stalking-like conduct, an altercation in which Father allegedly assaulted a grandfather, social-media posts, and instances of a vehicle believed to belong to Father seen near the caregivers’ home.
The juvenile court found no clear and convincing evidence of an immediate threat or recent pattern of harassment and denied the request for permanent restraining orders.
The court nonetheless issued an indefinite “no contact” order barring the biological parents from contact with Minor; parents appealed arguing lack of statutory authority and due process violations.
The Court of Appeal affirmed denial of the restraining orders but reversed the indefinite no-contact order as lacking a factual basis, statutory authority, and fair notice as to scope and duration.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether juvenile court properly issued indefinite no-contact order barring parents from Minor after parental rights terminated	Caregivers: no-contact necessary to protect Minor and placement	Parents: court exceeded jurisdiction, acted without statutory authority or adequate notice/due process	Reversed: no-contact order vacated — no factual basis for safety risk and indefinite nonstatutory order lacks fair notice; statutory restraining procedures must be used
Whether denial of caregivers’ requests for permanent restraining orders was proper	Caregivers: history of stalking, threats, violence justified protective orders	Parents: insufficient notice/jurisdiction; not recently threatening	Affirmed: substantial evidence supported denial because no immediate danger or recent pattern required for restraining orders

In re Jonathan V., 19 Cal.App.5th 236 (2018) (discusses duration and extension limits for juvenile-court protective orders)
In re N.L., 236 Cal.App.4th 1460 (2015) (standards for including minors in protective orders and sufficiency of evidence)
In re C.Q., 219 Cal.App.4th 355 (2013) (limits on restraining orders affecting parental educational rights)
In re A.M., 37 Cal.App.5th 614 (2019) (when restraining order is necessary to protect a child from an abusing parent)
In re Sheena K., 40 Cal.4th 875 (2007) (fair-notice principles for court orders)
People v. Ponce, 173 Cal.App.4th 378 (2009) (inherent judicial powers should not nullify statutory schemes; reserve no-contact orders for rare, compelling circumstances)
In re Brittany K., 127 Cal.App.4th 1497 (2005) (juvenile court may issue protective orders against nonparents to protect dependent children)