Filed 12/13/21 In re Nathaniel C. CA2/7

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN

In re NATHANIEL C., a Person 

Coming Under the Juvenile 

Court Law.

B311179

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. 18CCJP04923A)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF 

CHILDREN AND FAMILY 

SERVICES,

Plaintiff,

v.

VERONICA G.,

Defendant and Appellant;

RODOLFO C.,

Intervener and 

Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of 

Los Angeles County, Cynthia A. Zuzga, Juvenile Court Referee. 

Affirmed.
2

Janette Freeman Cochran for Defendant and Appellant

Veronica G.

Shaylah Padgett-Weibel for Intervener and Respondent

Rodolfo C.

No appearance by Plaintiff.

________________________

At the conclusion of dependency proceedings concerning 

nine-year-old Nathaniel C., the juvenile court issued a custody 

order pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 362.41

awarding Nathaniel’s parents, Veronica G. and Rodolfo C., joint 

physical and legal custody with Veronica having primary physical 

custody of the child. The order contained detailed provisions for 

Rodolfo’s visitation and custody exchanges and required Veronica 

and Rodolfo to communicate electronically for those purposes. 

The juvenile court denied Veronica’s request to require Rodolfo to 

sign a physical log recording his visits with Nathaniel and to

provide her with his current address. Veronica appeals the 

denial of those two requests. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. The Juvenile Court’s Exercise of Dependency Jurisdiction

The Los Angeles County Department of Children and 

Family Services (Department) filed a petition under section 300, 

subdivisions (a) (serious physical harm) and (b)(1) (failure to 

protect), on August 6, 2018 on behalf of then-six-year-old 

Nathaniel. The court sustained the petition as amended by 

interlineation in November 2018, finding that Veronica had used 

excessive force in grabbing and squeezing Nathaniel’s arms. 

1

Statutory references are to this code.
3

Rodolfo was nonoffending. The court declared Nathaniel a 

dependent of the court, ordered him suitably placed and ordered 

family reunification services for Veronica and Rodolfo. Both 

parents’ visitation with Nathaniel was initially to be monitored. 

In March 2019 Nathaniel was returned to Veronica’s 

custody with an order for family maintenance services. Rodolfo’s 

visitation remained monitored. The following month the 

Department detained Nathaniel and filed a section 342 petition 

alleging Veronica had failed to protect Nathaniel following her 

arrest for driving under the influence of alcohol while Nathaniel 

was a passenger in the car. The court sustained the subsequent 

petition, and Nathaniel was again ordered suitably placed by the 

juvenile court with family reunification services for the parents.

In October 2019 the court granted in part Veronica’s 

request for liberalized visitation (§ 388), allowing weekly 

overnight visits and unmonitored visitation on other occasions. 

The following month the court terminated its suitable placement 

order and returned Nathaniel to Veronica’s care under the 

supervision of the Department. Rodolfo was permitted 

unmonitored visitation with the Department authorized to 

liberalize his visitation to include overnight visits. The 

Department’s reports throughout the proceedings revealed 

Veronica and Rodolfo had a strained, frequently hostile 

relationship and experienced great difficulty communicating with 

each other, much less cooperating in coparenting. Those 

difficulties extended to interactions involving Veronica’s husband 

and Rodolfo’s current partner. 

Because of the COVID-19 pandemic there were no hearings

in the case between November 2019 and March 2021. On 
4

March 3, 2021 Veronica and Rodolfo met with a court mediator to 

discuss the terms of a juvenile court custody order. 

2. Termination of Jurisdiction and Entry of a Juvenile

Court Custody Order

At the section 364 review hearing on March 5, 2021 the 

court stated the conditions justifying dependency jurisdiction no 

longer existed and indicated it intended to terminate jurisdiction. 

Counsel for Veronica and Rodolfo advised the court the parents 

had reached an agreement for the terms of a custody order. 

Counsel for Veronica then requested that Rodolfo provide

her his address, which had been kept confidential to that point in 

the proceedings. He explained Veronica “has had issues with the 

father responding to her calls and her text messages. And if she 

wants to be sure that if something like that occurs while the child 

is with the father that an address be provided in case the father 

decides that he does not want to respond so the mother can at 

least know where the child is.” Counsel also asked, “[d]ue to 

these issues regarding the communication between the parents 

and what my client views as the father not exercising visits over 

the last few months,” that the court require Rodolfo to “sign a log 

she creates . . . using his own handwriting, so that she can affirm 

that she has [a] record of each time that father actually does 

attend one of his visits.”

Rodolfo’s counsel objected to both of Veronica’s requests, 

noting there was no evidence Rodolfo had been uncommunicative 

while Nathaniel was in his care, adding, “There are many cases 

like this, Your Honor, where parents don’t get along. My client 

would rather communicate through email.” Counsel explained 

that Rodolfo had created a separate email account in order to login and record visits and observed, “[T]he less contact these 
5

parents have during custody exchanges would be better. . . . I 

just want to avoid all arguments in front of Nathaniel during 

these custody exchanges, easy in, easy out.” As to Rodolfo’s 

address, counsel reminded the court it had been confidential 

throughout the case and said that not allowing Veronica to have 

the address was necessary for the sake of Rodolfo’s peace of mind. 

Minor’s counsel agreed a physical sign-in sheet could lead 

to conflict between the parents, but did not object to Rodolfo 

providing his address to Veronica. “The father knows where the 

mother lives. And if the child’s going to be in the father’s care, 

even though she didn’t request it in the past, doesn’t mean that 

it’s not reasonable for a parent to know where their child is in 

case there is some type of emergency.” The Department formally 

took no position on Veronica’s requests, but pointed out, “[T]hese 

parents do have animosity between them” and stated,“[T]he 

Department believes that it would be in Nathaniel’s best interest 

to have less contact, especially at visits in front of Nathaniel.” 

With respect to the address issue, the Department stated,

“Mother certainly has a contact number in case of emergency. 

And the Department has assessed that [Rodolfo’s] home is safe 

and appropriate for Nathaniel.”

The court denied both of Veronica’s request, ordering that 

there be some form of written communication regarding 

visitation, “through email, confirming their visits, or some sort of 

online application.” As to Rodolfo’s address the court found the 

request was not supported by the evidence: “Father has had 

unmonitored overnight visits. There haven’t been any issues. I 

believe that the mother has the telephone number. So unless 

there is a greater showing of why the confidentiality should be 
6

breached, the court’s not going to allow that to be part of the 

juvenile custody order.” 

The court ordered termination of dependency jurisdiction 

and entered a juvenile court custody order pursuant to section 

362.4 awarding the parents joint physical and legal custody of 

Nathaniel with primary physical custody awarded to Veronica. 

The custody order specified, “For visitation and child exchange 

purposes, Mother and Father must communicate through an 

online-based electronic parenting application.” 

Veronica filed a timely notice of appeal.

DISCUSSION

1. Juvenile Court Custody Orders: An Overview

Once a child has been adjudged a dependent of the juvenile 

court pursuant to section 300, “any issues regarding custodial 

rights between his or her parents shall be determined solely by 

the juvenile court . . . so long as the child remains a dependent of 

the juvenile court.” (§ 302, subd. (c); see In re Anna T. (2020) 

55 Cal.App.5th 870, 876.) When the juvenile court terminates 

dependency jurisdiction, the court, “on its own motion, may issue

. . . an order determining the custody of, or visitation with, the

child.” (§ 362.4, subd. (a).) Section 362.4 specifies that order

“shall continue until modified or terminated by a subsequent

order of the superior court” and directs the order be filed in a

pending family law proceeding (§ 362.4, subd. (b)) or, if there is

none, as part of a new family court file (§ 362.4, subd. (c)). 

When making a juvenile court custody order pursuant to 

section 362.4, “it is the best interests of the child, in the context 

of the peculiar facts of the case before the court, which are 

paramount.” (In re John W. (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 961, 965; 
7

accord, In re T.S. (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 503, 513; In re 

Nicholas H. (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 251, 268.) 

We review a juvenile court custody order for abuse of 

discretion. (In re C.W. (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 835, 863; In re M.R. 

(2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 886, 902; see In re T.H. (2010) 

190 Cal.App.4th 1119, 1124.) We “may not disturb the order 

unless the court ‘“‘exceeded the limits of legal discretion by 

making an arbitrary, capricious or patently absurd 

determination.’”’” (Bridget A. v. Superior Court (2007) 

148 Cal.App.4th 285, 300-301.) 

2. No Abuse of Discretion Occurred

The juvenile court acted well within its discretion in 

rejecting Veronica’s requests to include in the juvenile court 

custody order the requirement that Rodolfo sign a physical 

visitation log and disclose his current residence address to her.

With respect to the visitation log, Veronica asserts a 

physical document that Rodolfo signed would minimize conflict 

between the parents because there could be no dispute whether 

visits actually occurred. The court, however, agreed with Rodolfo 

and minor’s counsel (and with the Department’s informal 

assessment) that, given the continuing animosity between 

Veronica and Rodolfo, requiring them to personally interact at a

custody exchange would increase the prospect of conflict, which 

would most likely occur in Nathaniel’s presence. That 

determination was unquestionably reasonable given the parties’ 

history. 

Veronica suggests in her opening brief the juvenile court 

should not have assumed she had access to a device that would 

allow her to communicate electronically with Rodolfo. However, 

she did not make that argument in the juvenile court, let alone
8

present any evidence she was unable to email Rodolfo or use one 

of the free, online communication programs for parents. To the 

contrary, Veronica’s counsel complained on her behalf that 

Rodolfo did not return Veronica’s text messages when Nathaniel 

was visiting with him, plainly indicating Veronica had use of a 

smartphone or similar device. That objection, if it even is one, 

has been forfeited. (See In re S.B. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1287, 1293 

[forfeiture doctrine applies in dependency proceedings; appellate 

court generally will not review objection to juvenile court’s ruling 

raised for the first time on appeal]; In re Alexandria P. (2014) 

228 Cal.App.4th 1322, 1346 [same]; In re Wilford J. (2005) 

131 Cal.App.4th 742, 754 [same].)

Because their case did not involve domestic violence, 

Veronica’s request that Rodolfo be required to disclose his current 

address to her was not unreasonable. However, during the 

nearly three years the dependency proceedings had been pending, 

Rodolfo’s address had remained confidential; and, as the court 

emphasized, that had not created any difficulties for visitation 

and child exchange. In addition, Veronica had Rodolfo’s phone 

number to use in case of emergencies. Under these 

circumstances the court’s ruling denying disclosure was neither 

irrational nor arbitrary.

Veronica argues it would be in Nathaniel’s best interest for 

the child to know his father’s address, explaining, “If he had a 

friend over after school or during his weekend visits with Father, 

the parents would want to know that address.” Although that 

observation may well be true, nothing in the juvenile court 

custody order precludes Rodolfo from telling Nathaniel or the 

parents of Nathaniel’s friends his address (with or without a 

request that the information not be shared with others). Nor is 
9

Rodolfo prevented from advising Nathaniel’s school or his doctors 

of the address. Indeed, he is free to disclose his address to 

Veronica in the future if the relationship between the parties 

improves. The juvenile court custody order is silent as to all 

those matters. 

While it might lead to better parenting practices for 

Veronica and Rodolfo to have each other’s address, as Veronica 

contends, refusing to mandate disclosure to Veronica was well

within the juvenile court’s broad discretion.

DISPOSITION

The March 5, 2021 juvenile custody order is affirmed.

PERLUSS, P. J.

We concur:

SEGAL, J.

FEUER, J.