B328568
Cal. Ct. App.Oct 23, 2024Background
- Mother (Lilian O.) and father (Luis V.) have three children and a documented history of violent altercations and father’s substance abuse, including incidents of domestic violence witnessed by the children.
- In July 2022, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) filed a dependency petition citing risk due to the parents' violence and father's substance abuse.
- The juvenile court sustained the petition, removed the children from father’s custody, maintained them with mother, and ordered monitored visitation for father with DCFS discretion to liberalize.
- Following temporary liberalization, mother sought (and was granted) restraining orders against father after continued threatening and aggressive behavior, including incidents in 2022 and 2023.
- Upon terminating jurisdiction, the juvenile court awarded joint legal but sole physical custody to mother, monitored visitation to father, and included the children as protected parties in the restraining order.
- Father appealed the inclusion of the children in the restraining order and the restriction to monitored visits.
Issues
| Issue | Father's Argument | Mother's/Agency's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Inclusion of children as protected persons in restraining order | No evidence he was aggressive toward children; history/visits went well | Exposure to domestic violence and substance abuse in children's presence justifies protection | Substantial evidence supports inclusion of children for their safety |
| Monitor-only visitation order | No safety concerns during visits; court erred by not considering unmonitored visitation | Evidence of risk persists; procedural propriety—court already determined monitored visitation | No abuse of discretion; court properly maintained monitored visits |
| Court's refusal to reconsider visitation at restraining order hearing | Court believed it lacked authority to revisit visitation | Visitation already adjudicated; not procedurally before court | Court declined to reconsider; did not lack authority, but exercised discretion not to revisit |
| Effect of restraining order on educational rights | Restricts ability to participate in educational decisions due to 100-yard school restriction | Order allows indirect contact (mail, phone, electronic); no full bar on involvement | Claim waived; father provided no authority or reasoned argument |
Key Cases Cited
- In re N.L., 236 Cal.App.4th 1460 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (Juvenile court may issue restraining orders protecting children based on exposure to domestic violence, even without direct violence against the child)
- In re B.S., 172 Cal.App.4th 183 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (Exposure of children to domestic violence between parents supports restraining order)
- In re Caden C., 11 Cal.5th 614 (Cal. 2021) (Substantial evidence standard requires deference to trial court's findings in dependency matters)