In re O.A. CA1/3, A161891

Two siblings (O.A., age 14; S.A., age 12) were made dependents in 2012 after parental substance abuse, neglect, and related findings; placed with maternal great-aunt and great-uncle.
Guardians cared for the children and were appointed legal guardians in April 2015; children showed marked improvement in the guardians’ care.
Mother had a long history of inconsistent or missed supervised visits, substance issues, poor communication with the Agency, and occasional inappropriate conduct during visits; children often resisted contact with her.
Over time the Agency and guardians generally supported limited contact when it was in the children’s emotional best interests; mediation and a Child & Family Team (CFT) meeting led to proposals for therapeutic, scheduled phone/virtual contacts.
In January 2021 the Agency and guardians recommended terminating juvenile dependency and continuing guardianship; the juvenile court terminated dependency but (mistakenly) declined to issue a visitation order, believing any such order would lapse on termination.
The Court of Appeal affirmed termination of dependency but remanded for the juvenile court to rule under Welf. & Inst. Code § 366.26(c)(4)(C) on whether visitation would be detrimental; if not, the court must order appropriate visitation.

Issue	Mother’s Argument	Agency/Guardians’ Argument	Held
Whether terminating dependency was an abuse of discretion because visitation disputes created "exceptional circumstances" requiring retained jurisdiction	Guardians obstructed visits; court should retain jurisdiction to enforce visitation	Primary cause was Mother’s failures to participate and harmful behavior; children are stable with guardians and no exceptional circumstances exist	Affirmed: no abuse of discretion; court reasonably found no exceptional circumstance to retain dependency jurisdiction
Whether the juvenile court erred by not issuing a visitation order on terminating dependency	Court was required to issue visitation under § 366.26(c)(4)(C) unless detriment shown	Failure to issue order was harmless or prior arrangements would continue	Reversed in part: remand for court to determine under § 366.26(c)(4)(C) whether visitation would be detrimental; if not, court must order visitation

In re Ethan J., 236 Cal.App.4th 654 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (explains "exceptional circumstances" warranting retained dependency jurisdiction)
In re Stephanie M., 7 Cal.4th 295 (Cal. 1994) (standard for abuse of discretion review)
In re M.R., 7 Cal.App.5th 886 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017) (abuse of discretion review in dependency context)
In re Grace C., 190 Cal.App.4th 1470 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (juvenile court may enter visitation orders that persist after dependency termination)
In re Twighla T., 4 Cal.App.4th 799 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992) (post-termination visitation disputes can be addressed through guardianship jurisdiction)
In re Kenneth S., Jr., 169 Cal.App.4th 1353 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (distinguishes exit-order authority when a parent regains custody)