Sacramento County Department of Health & Human Services v. M.M.
4 Cal. App. 5th 1214
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Minor (age 11 at petition) alleged prolonged physical abuse and severe corporal punishment by father, including repeated punching and belt beatings, and repeated name-calling; mother had died in 2011 and minor lived with father.
- Minor reported fear of father, trembled when discussing him, refused to return home, and asked not to be made to see father; teacher observed atypical terror.
- Police previously responded when father forced minor home from grandmother’s house; father was handcuffed for several hours due to uncooperative, angry behavior.
- Father had a prior misdemeanor domestic violence conviction against his spouse and failed to complete court-ordered batterer’s treatment; he also used marijuana in the child’s presence.
- Department filed a section 300 petition; juvenile court found minor’s statements credible, adjudged dependency, removed child from father, and ordered no visitation pending individual counseling and assurances of safety (therapeutic visitation/conjoint counseling to follow).
- Father appealed, arguing the court applied the wrong standard and that any monitored visits would not jeopardize the child’s physical safety.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether juvenile court may deny visitation based on child’s emotional well-being (not only physical safety) | Dept.: Statute permits visitation "as frequent as possible, consistent with the well-being of the child," and well-being includes emotional health, so visits can be denied to protect emotional welfare | Father: Section 362.1 authorizes denial only where physical safety is threatened; monitored visits would protect physical safety here | Court: Agrees with Dept.; "well-being" includes emotional as well as physical health, so court may deny visitation when visits would harm child’s emotional well-being |
| Whether denial of visitation was supported by the record (standard of review) | Dept.: Denial is supported under either abuse of discretion or substantial-evidence standards given the record | Father: Challenges sufficiency of evidence that visitation would threaten physical safety or well-being | Court: Either standard supports the order; substantial evidence showed risk to child’s well-being and no abuse of discretion |
| Whether therapeutic/monitored visitation would have avoided detriment | Dept.: Court reasonably required individual counseling and safety assurances before therapeutic visitation | Father: Monitored visits would prevent physical harm; outright denial unnecessary | Court: Father’s history of violent discipline, his refusal to engage in services, and child’s extreme fear justified delaying visitation until counseling and safety assurances obtained |
Key Cases Cited
- Montenegro v. Diaz, 26 Cal.4th 249 (recognition of visitation importance and standards of review)
- In re Mark L., 94 Cal.App.4th 573 (visitation required unless inconsistent with child’s well-being; emotional well-being relevant)
- In re C.C., 172 Cal.App.4th 1481 (contrasting view that section 362.1 focuses on physical safety)
- In re Brittany C., 191 Cal.App.4th 1343 (supports denying visitation to protect emotional well-being)
- In re Julie M., 69 Cal.App.4th 41 (courts consider child’s aversion to visitation with abusive parent as one factor)