In re V.R. CA2/4
B269369
| Cal. Ct. App. | Aug 23, 2016Background
- Two minors, V.R. (12) and A.R. (8), reported repeated physical and emotional abuse by their father during visits; incidents included severe slaps causing head trauma, kicking, hair-pulling, threats, and name-calling.
- V.R. had depression, suicidal ideation and a prior suicide attempt; both children received therapy and expressed fear of father; V.R. did not want visits with father.
- DCFS investigated, filed a section 300 petition alleging physical and emotional abuse and risk to the children; the juvenile court sustained multiple counts including emotional abuse (count c-1 as to V.R.).
- At detention and disposition the court released the children to mother, ordered monitored visits for A.R., and ordered no visitation between father and V.R. "unless and until the court orders otherwise." Father objected and appealed the no-visitation order.
- The appellate court reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed, finding substantial evidence that visits would be detrimental to V.R.’s safety and emotional well-being and that the court retained, not abdicated, its discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court erred by ordering no visitation between father and V.R. pending further order | DCFS/children: evidence of physical and emotional abuse and V.R.’s trauma supports suspending visits to protect child’s safety and mental health | Father: denial that visits can be conditioned on child’s wishes or that court failed to articulate factual basis; visitation cannot be denied solely on child preference | Affirmed — court did not abdicate discretion; substantial evidence (abuse, V.R.’s depression and suicidality) supported finding visitation would be detrimental and temporary suspension was appropriate |
| Whether the court improperly delegated decision to child/therapist | DCFS/children: child’s refusal is a relevant factor considered alongside clinical evidence | Father: court impermissibly let V.R. decide when visits start | Held — court’s final order placed decision with court; child’s wishes were one proper factor among others |
| Whether the court needed to order experimental/therapeutic monitored visits before suspending visitation | DCFS/children: no experimentation required where evidence shows risk; evaluations by therapists are acceptable | Father: lack of a single monitored therapeutic visit means insufficent showing of detriment | Held — court not required to risk child’s safety by experimental visits; reliance on clinical reports and history was proper |
| Whether the court articulated an evidentiary basis for "detriment" finding | DCFS/children: articulated by sustained emotional-abuse count and record evidence | Father: court used the word "detriment" but failed to state factual findings tying evidence to the conclusion | Held — even if phrasing imperfect, record contains ample evidence to support detriment finding and appellate review upholds correct outcome regardless of exact reasoning |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Brittany C., 191 Cal.App.4th 1343 (2011) (abuse of discretion review of visitation orders; court may suspend visits to prevent emotional harm)
- In re Julie M., 69 Cal.App.4th 41 (1999) (visitation important to reunification but must be consistent with child’s well-being; court should avoid giving children absolute veto)
- In re S.H., 111 Cal.App.4th 310 (2003) (juvenile court must not abdicate its visitation-deciding power to child, therapist, or social worker)
- In re C.C., 172 Cal.App.4th 1481 (2009) (some visitation is mandatory unless court specifically finds any visitation would threaten child safety)
- In re Jonathan B., 5 Cal.App.4th 873 (1992) (appellate courts uphold judgments correct on any legal ground regardless of trial court reasoning)
- In re Mark L., 94 Cal.App.4th 573 (2001) (discusses standards for visitation and review)