Filed 11/3/20 In re G.T. CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions 

not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion 

has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

In re G.T., a Person Coming 

Under the Juvenile Court Law.

2d Juv. No. B304295

(Super. Ct. No. J071989)

(Ventura County)

VENTURA COUNTY HUMAN 

SERVICES AGENCY,

 Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

S.T,

 Defendant and Appellant.

S.T. (Mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s order 

restraining her from contact with a social worker (Social Worker) 

from the Ventura County Human Services Agency (the Agency). 

(Welf. & Inst. Code,1 § 213.5.) We affirm. 

1 Further unspecified statutory references are to the 

Welfare and Institutions Code.
2

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In January 2019, the Agency filed a juvenile petition 

after Mother tested positive for marijuana and 

methamphetamine at the birth of her son, G.T. The petition 

alleged Mother failed to protect G.T.

2 The juvenile court 

sustained the petition. It declared G.T. a dependent of the court

and ordered him to remain in foster care. The court ordered 

family reunification services for Mother.

In August, the Agency filed a request for a 

restraining order against Mother. It alleged Mother’s cousin told 

Social Worker that Mother stated “should she ‘lose’ [G.T.] in the 

upcoming dependency hearing . . . that she was going to ‘kill the 

social worker . . . and herself’ at the courthouse after the 

hearing.” The cousin said “this is not an idle threat and that 

[Mother had] been exhibiting increasingly concerning behaviors 

and mental health issues.” The cousin warned Social Worker to 

“be aware of her surroundings at all times.” 

Social Worker said she recently assisted G.T.’s foster 

parents with filing a police report against Mother, who had 

“threatened” the foster parents. Mother told the foster parents

that G.T.’s “safety was at risk and that [G.T.] would be ‘stolen,’ 

and provided information that the [foster parents] had recently 

been followed to a medical appointment for [G.T.] and observed 

from afar.”

The juvenile court granted a temporary restraining 

order and set a hearing date for the permanent restraining order. 

In the meantime, the Agency filed a sixth-month status report. 

2 The petition also alleged that G.T.’s father had abused 

substances and that his whereabouts were unknown. The father 

is not a party to this appeal. 
3

In it, the Agency included further details about the police report. 

The foster parents received a text message from Mother that 

said: “‘you should be aware of possible danger for my son. His 

father has said he knows where u guys live and also your 

names.’” However, the Agency noted that the alleged father was 

not in contact with the Agency, so there was “no way he could 

learn of the location of the doctor visit, the foster parent[s’]

name[s] or any identifying information without the mother’s 

disclosure.” The status report also stated that Mother told a case 

aide that her “biggest fear is dad is going to break into that house 

and take the baby.”

The juvenile court held a hearing on the permanent 

restraining order in January 2020. The Agency submitted a 

memorandum describing Social Worker’s call with Mother’s 

cousin about Mother’s threats. The Agency also attached a 

memorandum that described an incident in November 2019 after 

a supervised visit at the Juvenile Justice Center (JJC). While a 

social worker from the foster agency and a case aide were 

preparing to transport G.T. back to the foster home, the alleged 

father pulled into the JJC parking lot to pick up Mother. They 

then began to “circle the parking lot around” the case aide and 

the social worker. As a result, the Agency developed a safety 

plan for dropping off and picking up G.T. at the JJC. The Agency 

told Mother that this behavior “is viewed as unsafe” and 

“intimidating.” After the phone call, Mother texted the Agency: 

“[The alleged father] did just threaten to take the baby. I’m 

trying to leave now. Just put a restraining order on him if 

possible, I’m going to . . . .” The Agency informed Mother that 

alleged father’s behavior has “now caused the Agency to be 

concerned for the safety of” G.T. Mother responded that it was 
4

“very difficult to leave” the alleged father. A month later, the 

Agency learned that the alleged father continued to sit in the 

parking lot in front of the JJC. The Agency developed a new 

safety plan. 

At the hearing, Mother objected to the admission of

her cousin’s statements as hearsay. The court ruled that it could 

consider the statements “as well as anything else in the file that 

would support the request. And having looked one more time at 

the memo, there are some indicia of reliability in some of the 

details that are provided.” Mother made an offer of proof that if 

called to testify, she would deny making the threat.

After the hearing, the court issued the restraining 

order against Mother, and ordered it into effect for a period of 

three years. 

DISCUSSION 

Mother contends the court erred when it issued the 

restraining order because it was not supported by substantial 

evidence. We disagree. 

Pursuant to section 213.5, a juvenile court may issue

an order “enjoining any person from . . . stalking, threatening, . . . 

harassing, telephoning, . . . contacting, either directly or 

indirectly, by mail or otherwise, [or] coming within a specified 

distance of, or disturbing the peace of the child’s current or 

former social worker or court appointed special advocate.” “A 

restraining order under section 213.5 is reviewed for an abuse of 

discretion. The juvenile court’s factual findings are upheld if they 

are supported by substantial evidence.” (In re A.M. (2019) 37 

Cal.App.5th 614, 619.) In reviewing the evidence, we must draw 

all reasonable inferences to support the court’s decision. (In re

Carlos H. (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 861, 866 (Carlos H.).) We 
5

construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the juvenile 

court’s ruling, even if other evidence supports the contrary 

conclusion. (People v. Earp (1999) 20 Cal.4th 826, 887-888.) We 

will not find an abuse of discretion unless Mother demonstrates 

the court acted in an arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd 

manner and that a miscarriage of justice resulted. (Carlos H., at 

p. 866.)

The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion here. 

Substantial evidence supports the restraining order. (In re 

Cassandra B. (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 199, 210-211 [“If there is 

substantial evidence supporting the order, the court’s issuance of 

the restraining order may not be disturbed”].) The cousin 

reported that Mother threatened to kill Social Worker and herself

if she were to “‘lose’” G.T. in the next dependency hearing. The 

cousin stated this was not an “idle threat” and warned of

Mother’s “increasingly concerning behaviors.”

Other evidence also supports the restraining order. 

After a visitation at the JJC, Mother and G.T.’s father circled 

around the case aide and another social worker as they 

transported G.T. back to the foster home. And according to Social 

Worker, Mother also told the foster parents that G.T. was at risk

and reported that they had been followed when they took G.T. to 

a medical appointment. 

In challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, Mother 

concedes that the juvenile court was permitted to rely “in whole 

or in part” on the cousin’s hearsay statements. (In re M.B. (2011) 

201 Cal.App.4th 1057, 1071.) However, she argues that the 

Social Worker’s memorandum did not support the order. Instead, 

the evidence supported a “conclusion that the father, and not the 

mother, posed a physical threat” to Social Worker. We disagree. 
6

There was ample evidence that Mother posed a threat to Social 

Worker. The court thus did not abuse its discretion when it 

granted the restraining order. 

DISPOSITION 

The order (granting the permanent restraining order 

dated January 22, 2020) is affirmed. 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

TANGEMAN, J.

We concur:

GILBERT, P. J.

PERREN, J.
Tari L. Cody, Judge

Superior Court County of Ventura

______________________________

Landon Villavaso, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Leroy Smith, County Counsel, Joseph J. Randazzo, 

Assistant County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.