Filed 7/7/16 In re Gage R. CA5

Received for posting 7/8/16

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re GAGE R., a Person Coming Under the 

Juvenile Court Law.

MADERA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF 

SOCIAL SERVICES/CHILD WELFARE 

SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

P.S.,

Defendant and Appellant.

F072550

(Super. Ct. No. MJP017211)

OPINION

THE COURT*

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Madera County. Thomas L. 

Bender, Judge.

Karriem Baker, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant.

Douglas W. Nelson, County Counsel, and Miranda Neal, Deputy County Counsel, 

for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

 

* Before Levy, Acting P.J., Kane, J. and Franson, J.
2

Appellant P.S. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s final custody and 

visitation orders under Welfare and Institutions Code section 362.41 as to her now fouryear-old son Gage. Mother contends the juvenile court erred by denying her visitation. 

We affirm.

PROCEDUAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY

Mother and Marty R. (father), Gage’s biological parents, have a very contentious 

relationship stemming from father’s marriage to Terrie. Mother found out father was 

married to Terrie a month after Gage was born. She subsequently prohibited father from 

visiting Gage and initiated custody proceedings. Mother and father’s volatile relationship 

was exacerbated by a restraining order that mother obtained against Terrie and mother 

and father’s dispute as to whether Gage should be circumcised. Their animosity toward 

each other manifested whenever they were required to have contact, such as when 

exchanging Gage for visitation and taking Gage to medical appointments. They shared 

equal custody of Gage but Gage lived primarily with mother.

In June 2013, the Madera County Department of Social Services (department) met 

with mother and father to discuss their ongoing accusations of neglect and physical and 

emotional abuse against one another over the previous six months. Mother and father 

were thoroughly checking Gage’s body for bruises or marks upon his return from visits 

and accusing each other of neglect and not communicating with the other on Gage’s 

behalf. They were also reporting each other to law enforcement for physical abuse. 

Gage was exhibiting aggressive behavior after visits such as biting, pinching, and hitting.

In August 2013, the department filed a dependency petition on Gage’s behalf, 

alleging mother and father’s volatile relationship placed Gage at a substantial risk of 

suffering serious physical and emotional harm. (§ 300, subds. (b) & (c).) The 

department did not take Gage into protective custody.

 

1 All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
3

The juvenile court found prima facie evidence that Gage was subject to its 

dependency jurisdiction as alleged in the petition. The court ordered that Gage remain in 

his parents’ custody. Several days later, during his visitation, father informed mother by 

email that Gage had a “blood blister” on his penis. Mother demanded that he take Gage 

to his regular pediatrician immediately and to let her know when they arrived so she 

could be present during his appointment as ordered by the family court. Instead, father 

took Gage to the doctor two days later and did not notify her. During their exchange of 

Gage at the police station, mother inspected Gage’s penis in the restroom and saw what 

appeared to be red and purple discoloration on his foreskin. She notified one of the 

officers who took a report and photographed Gage’s penis. Two days later, mother took 

Gage to his pediatrician who determined that Gage had bruised foreskin and that he did 

not have a viral infection of his penis. Mother was concerned that she had to turn Gage 

over to father for a visit and contacted the social worker. When she was unable to get in 

touch with the social worker, she took Gage to the department office. The social worker 

conferred with mother and with father and Terrie separately and told mother she had to 

release Gage for visitation. A supervisor contacted Gage’s pediatrician, Dr. Naz, who 

was unable to conclusively state that the bruise was physical abuse.

Dr. Naz addressed the issue of Gage’s uncircumcised penis in a letter, stating he 

had evaluated Gage multiple times for irritated penile foreskin. It was a contentious 

matter for the parents; father wanted him circumcised and mother did not. Dr. Naz 

recommended circumcision to them at birth but it was not performed. As a result, Gage 

had multiple episodes of balanitis (irritation and inflammation) of the foreskin and had 

been seen in his office, the emergency room, and by another physician who also 

recommended circumcision. He said he had explained to mother and father numerous 

times how to take care of an uncircumcised boy.

In October 2013, the juvenile court convened a contested jurisdictional hearing on 

the petition filed in August 2013. The court heard testimony and continued the hearing 
4

until December 19, 2013. Meanwhile, on December 12, 2013, at approximately 

8:30 a.m., mother took Gage to the department office for the visitation exchange with 

father. Gage started whimpering when social worker Vilma Dunn told him that he was 

going with father. He started crying even more when father took him. Father told Dunn 

that mother drove by his home several times and accused Terrie of hurting someone. 

Law enforcement interviewed Terrie and she was afraid she was going to be charged with 

a crime. Father said he did not want the court or the department involved but he did not 

know what to do anymore. He became emotional and said that mother acted one way 

around the court and social worker but was totally different when no one was around. He 

suspected that mother was medicating Gage before his visits with father because Gage’s 

behavior had changed. He also suspected that mother was showing Gage pictures of him 

and Terrie because Gage was afraid of Terrie.

Approximately 20 minutes after father left the office with Gage, he called Dunn 

and said that Gage had bruising in his ears, a cut behind his ear and under his eye, and his 

eyelashes had been cut. Dunn directed father to return Gage to the office and to take him 

to have a hair follicle test for drugs and possible over-the-counter medication. When 

Dunn turned Gage over to mother, mother cried and stated she had not harmed Gage and 

stated father “did it and he is evil.” Mother kept asking Gage, “Who did it? Gage, who 

did this to you!?” Dunn instructed mother to stop questioning Gage.

The following day, the department received a report of possible child abuse from a 

hospital social worker. Mother had taken Gage to the emergency room where a physician 

determined that his injury was “inflicted” and “non-accidental.” Gage had a bone scan,

which was normal, but he had multiple bruises at different stages of healing. Mother 

accused father of injuring Gage during his visit the day before. She said father had a 

history of pulling children’s ears and of drug use, including cocaine, steroids, and 

marijuana. The police were contacted and a protective hold was placed on Gage. The 

department placed Gage in foster care.
5

Dr. Philip Hyden, medical director of the Child Advocacy Clinic at Childrens 

Hospital of Central California, evaluated Gage in the emergency room. He stated that 

Gage’s ears had been “boxed” and that someone cut Gage’s eyelashes and that he had 

abrasions near his left eye that were probably sustained when his eyelashes were being 

cut. He said whoever cut his eyelashes was “sadistic.”

On December 17, 2013, Dunn was notified that Gage tested positive for 

methamphetamine at a rate in excess of the adult cutoff level. Mother and father also 

submitted to hair follicle testing and tested negative for drugs.

The department filed an amended petition, alleging Gage suffered serious physical 

harm inflicted by one or both of his parents and they had no reasonable explanation for 

his injuries. The petition also alleged that Gage was at risk of suffering serious physical 

harm as a result of their volatile relationship. (§ 300, subds. (a), (b) & (c).)

The juvenile court ordered Gage detained on the amended petition and ordered the 

department to offer mother and father services, including a psychological evaluation. In 

February 2014, following a contested jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court found the 

allegations to be true and set the matter for disposition. Mother and father denied using 

methamphetamine or exposing Gage to it. They also denied injuring Gage. It was never 

determined how Gage ingested methamphetamine.

In February 2014, the department filed its report for the dispositional hearing. By 

that time, the department had placed Gage with father because father was demonstrating 

appropriate parenting skills while mother was not. According to mother’s parenting 

instructor, mother declined to discipline Gage and allowed him to hit her and his siblings. 

The department requested that the juvenile court order Gage to be placed in father’s 

custody and that the court provide both parents reunification services.

In March 2014, the juvenile court convened a contested dispositional hearing,

which would ultimately conclude in July 2014. During the course of the hearing, the 

department continued to receive information about the family situation, which it relayed 
6

to the court. In March 2014, the department reported that Gage was adversely affected 

by visiting mother. Father reported that Gage did not want to eat or play and was having 

a hard time sleeping. He complained that his stomach hurt and he played with his 

fingers. While with mother, he threw tantrums, pushed her away, and refused to be 

comforted. In addition, mother persisted in taking pictures of Gage during visits, 

including taking pictures of his private parts, tummy, and leg while changing him and had 

to be counseled multiple times to stop. In mid-March 2014, Dunn received a call from 

Terrie who stated that she and Gage ran into mother at a swap meet. She claimed that 

mother was following her. Mother, meanwhile, contacted the police, stating that Terrie

was following her and violating her restraining order. Dunn responded to the swap meet 

and noted that Gage appeared to be “shut down” with a flat affect. After this episode, it 

was decided that mother’s visits with Gage would be supervised by Gage’s therapist Julia 

Garcia.

In April 2014, psychologist Robert Taylor reported the findings of his

psychological evaluation of mother. He diagnosed her as having a personality disorder 

with histrionic and narcissistic features. He said her personality disorder significantly 

compromised her ability to provide a safe and secure emotional environment for Gage. 

This was manifested by her negativity toward father, near-delusional beliefs about being 

harassed by father and social workers, passive-aggressive behavior and emotional overinvolvement with Gage.

In May 2014, Julia Garcia reported on the progress of Gage’s therapeutic visits 

with mother. She observed that he had significant difficulty emotionally engaging with 

mother and was often aggressive toward her, throwing toys at her, punching her in the 

throat and pulling her hair. She did not know where his aggression originated and had 

not observed the same behavior with father or Terrie. She also observed that he was 

detached toward mother, which raised questions about their early involvement, especially 

since mother described it as “good” and “normal.”
7

Garcia reported that Gage engaged in rough play with mother, which mother 

allowed and encouraged. He did not make eye contact with her and played at a distance, 

often pulling back from her or running from her. He did not hug or kiss her and when he

allowed her to pick him up, he pulled her hair and grabbed her neck, wanting to get down 

right away. He seemed bothered by mother’s presence and wanted to leave visits early. 

During one visit, Gage was having a hard time and became completely disassociated. 

Father was contacted to physically remove him from the building. Gage hugged father 

very tightly and took a deep breath. He was able to self-regulate after about 10 minutes. 

Garcia visited Gage at home the next day. He was taking a nap and appeared to be 

having sleep disturbances to the point of being physically pale.

In June 2014, Garcia testified that Gage was globally delayed because he was not 

achieving any of his milestones. After ruling out autism as the cause, Garcia concluded 

that Gage’s delay was the result of trauma that occurred in the first two and a half years 

of his life. She believed that Gage suffered pediatric posttraumatic stress disorder while 

in mother’s care and she recommended that the court terminate mother’s visits.

Garcia further testified that Gage was not attached to mother. His relationship 

with her was a “‘[d]isorganized [a]ttachment,’” which occurs because of pathological 

care in the first three years of a child’s life. She explained that pathological care was 

neglect or trauma based on sexual or physical abuse. Gage’s reactions after visits with 

mother were the result of him being exposed to the origin of his trauma. She believed 

that Gage did not show his fear during visits with mother because he was in front of the 

person who harmed him. Gage then “released that energy” at father’s home because he 

was in a safe place. She said that Gage would indicate who harmed him by his behavior. 

If father and Terrie had harmed him, he would not exhibit the growth he did in their care. 

He would behave toward them as he behaved toward mother. She believed father and 

Terrie should continue to raise Gage. He shared a mutually engaging relationship with 

them and was thriving in their care.
8

In July 2014, at the conclusion of the contested hearing, the juvenile court 

declared Gage a dependent child, ordered him removed from mother and placed with 

father. The court ordered therapeutic visits for mother for one hour twice a week and 

ordered mother and father to participate in a coparenting class. The court also ordered a 

psychological evaluation of Gage to determine if he was suffering from any mental health 

condition and to include, if applicable, a diagnosis and treatment plan.

In a letter dated July 24, 2014, Julia Garcia advised Dunn that Gage could no 

longer tolerate having visits with mother and that she felt she was harming him by 

allowing him to be exposed to mother. She related how Gage reacted in fear the moment 

he arrived at the department building knowing that he would see mother. He cried, 

pinched himself, and twisted his fingers. He had also begun to employ new maladaptive 

behaviors such as disassociating or freezing. On July 23, 2014, prior to a visit, he cried 

hysterically and then physically withdrew, appearing to fall asleep. He went into a 

“freeze” stance and dissociated, casting his eyes down and assuming a flat affect. His 

body became rigid and he did not respond to Terrie. When mother saw him, she 

demanded that he be drug tested. Approximately 18 minutes later, Gage came out of his 

dissociative state and began to engage with mother but at a distance. The following day, 

during a home visit, Garcia found him engaging and playing with Terrie until Garcia 

mentioned the word “visit.” Immediately, Gage became still, his eyes widened, and his 

affect became flat, and his body rigid. Garcia stated that if Gage continued to be exposed 

to mother, he would suffer long-term emotional and behavioral difficulties.

After mother’s visit ended, she prevailed upon the department to order a drug test 

for Gage after involving her attorney and Dr. Hyden. Father took Gage to the emergency 

room to be drug tested. Mother also went to the emergency room. When Gage saw her 

he began to cry and then to wail. The on-call social worker at the emergency room stated 

that Gage appeared terrified of mother and appeared to have wet himself out of fear. 
9

Mother was escorted out of the area by security. As soon as she left, Gage immediately 

calmed down. Gage tested negative for drugs.

The following day, the juvenile court convened a hearing and approved county 

counsel’s request to temporarily suspend mother’s visits. The court set a hearing on the 

department’s section 388 petition to terminate mother’s visitation.

In August 2014, the juvenile court ordered Dr. Kambam to conduct a 

psychological evaluation of Gage. The court also approved a case plan and ordered 

therapeutic visits to resume but for one visit a week. The court conducted a hearing on 

the section 388 petition and approved a stipulated agreement by the parties regarding 

mother’s therapeutic visits, visits with the maternal grandparents and siblings, and 

medical appointments. The court set a family maintenance review hearing for November 

2014.

In December 2014, Dr. Kambam completed the report of his psychological 

evaluation of Gage. He diagnosed Gage as having a stress-related disorder related to an 

unspecific trauma and a language disorder. He opined that Gage had a disordered 

attachment with mother and it was in Gage’s best interest to remain with father and 

Terrie. He also opined that Gage was at risk of developing a reactive attachment disorder 

if placed with mother.

In July 2015, mother was arrested for being an accessory to promoting/assisting 

further felonious acts with a street gang and attempted crime/murder.

In August 2015, the juvenile court conducted a contested family maintenance 

review hearing. Julia Garcia testified that after Gage no longer had visits with mother or 

maternal grandparents, he stopped defecating in his pants and hiding under the bed. She 

said he rode the bus to school and attended a special day preschool. Social worker 

Maravilla also testified that Gage appeared very different to her when she visited him in 

his father’s home a month before. She said he appeared calm, happy and relaxed, which 

she attributed to him not seeing mother for approximately a month. She said she was 
10

concerned about Gage visiting with mother in light of mother’s criminal charges. She 

discussed her concern with mother who said the police report was “all lies” and part of 

police corruption. Maravilla recommended that mother’s visitation be suspended, that 

father be granted sole custody of Gage, and that the case be dismissed.

In October 2015, the juvenile court awarded father sole legal and physical custody 

of Gage. The court did not order visits for mother and set a review hearing in family 

court for June 2016.

This appeal ensued.

DISCUSSION

Upon termination of dependency proceedings, the juvenile court may issue “an 

order determining the custody of, or visitation with, the child.” (§ 362.4.) Such orders 

become part of an existing family court file and remain in effect until they are terminated 

or modified by the family court. (In re T.H. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1119, 1123.) In 

making a custody or visitation order under section 362.4, the juvenile court must be 

guided by the totality of the circumstances and issue an order that serves the child’s best 

interests. (In re Chantal S. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 196, 201.)

A custody or visitation order under section 362.4 is subject to the abuse of 

discretion standard of review. (Bridget A. v. Superior Court (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 285, 

300.) A reviewing court will not disturb a custody or visitation order under section 362.4 

unless the juvenile court exceeded the limits of legal discretion by making an arbitrary, 

capricious, or patently absurd determination. (Bridget A. v. Superior Court, supra, at pp. 

300-301.)

Mother contends the juvenile court did not consider the totality of the 

circumstances in deciding not to order visitation for her. Had it done so, she argues, it 

would have considered the strong bond she and Gage share and would have been 

compelled to order visitation. We disagree.
11

The juvenile court had compelling evidence from Julia Garcia, who opined that 

Gage was not bonded to mother but rather had a disordered attachment to her. 

Dr. Kambam confirmed Garcia’s opinion. What made Garcia’s opinion compelling was 

that it was not based on a one-time assessment but on months of working with mother 

and Gage and observing their interactions. Further, the court was able to indirectly 

witness Gage’s lack of bond with mother and increased aversion to her through the 

department’s reports filed during the course of the dispositional hearing.

Mother argues the juvenile court could not have concluded she and Gage were not 

bonded if it had more heavily weighed the testimony of Dr. Hyden and her psychologist, 

Dr. Sommers. Specifically, mother refers to Dr. Hyden’s testimony that, during the 

approximately 30 minutes he spent with Gage, he observed that mother was very 

appropriate with Gage and that Gage was easily consoled by her. He did not observe 

anything about their interaction that concerned him. She also refers us to Dr. Sommers’s

testimony that he believed mother loved Gage and had a strong “tie” to him.

Mother in essence asks this court to reweigh the evidence, which we cannot do. 

Our role is to determine whether substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s factual 

findings. As we stated above, there was substantial evidence that Gage was not bonded 

to mother and that any attachment he had to her was a source of distress. Further, 

Dr. Hyden did not render an opinion as to mother’s bond with Gage and Dr. Sommers’s 

opinion that mother had a strong tie to Gage was based solely on mother’s description of 

her relationship with Gage.

Finally, we find no abuse of discretion in the juvenile court’s decision to deny 

mother visitation. Gage was becoming increasingly distraught as a result of his contact 

with mother to the point that visitation was emotional damaging to him. Under the 

circumstances, it was not in his best interest at that time to continue to visit her. We find 

no error.
12

DISPOSITION

The juvenile court’s orders regarding custody and visitation are affirmed.