Filed 9/30/21 In re Lincoln C. CA2/8

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

In re Lincoln C., a Person Coming 

Under the Juvenile Court Law.

______________________________

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

J.C.,

Defendant and Appellant.

B310802

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. 19CCJP02886A)

APPEAL from order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles 

County, Lisa A. Brackelmanns, Juvenile Court Referee. 

Affirmed.

Suzanne M. Davidson, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rodrigo A. Castro-Silva, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, 

Assistant County Counsel, and Peter Ferrera, Deputy County 

Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________________________
2

INTRODUCTION

Appellant J.C. (Father) appeals a custody “exit” order, 

arguing the juvenile court abused its discretion when it ordered 

monitored visitation for Father.

We disagree, and find the juvenile court did not abuse its 

discretion in ordering monitored visitation. We therefore affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Referral, Investigation, Removal

On March 29, 2019, the Los Angeles Department of 

Children and Family Services (DCFS) received a referral alleging 

Father was emotionally abusing his son Lincoln, then a 10-yearold child with autism. The reporting party stated Mother and 

Father were “undergoing a contentious divorce.” Mother had a 

domestic violence restraining order in place against Father, and 

Father had a long history of abuse and domestic violence. The 

reporting party stated Mother said Father was “verbally abusive 

and threatened [Mother’s] life in the child’s presence.” The 

reporting party also stated Father “is transient and lives in his 

RV.”

On April 3, 2019, a children’s social worker (CSW) 

interviewed Mother about the allegations. Mother stated her 

relationship with Father “has been a domestic violence 

relationship since the beginning.[1]” Per Mother, Father would 

promise to make things better. “[W]hen things were ‘bad,’ he 

would slap her and punch her.” Mother was left with marks and 

bruises, including “blackened eyes.” Mother stated that “being 

choked by [Father] was the most frightening because when she 

1 Mother and Father married on May 12, 2005.
3

would start to lose consciousness, she didn’t know if she would 

live or die.” Father has threatened and intimidated her and has 

threatened to take Lincoln to Ohio with him. It took Mother 

“over a decade to finally call the police and get a temporary 

restraining order” and since then, she “has experienced the most 

peace she’s had in many years.”

Mother showed the CSW two Ring doorbell camera videos. 

The first video shows Father attacking Mother at the front door 

of her home. Father is seen waiting on the porch and upon 

Mother opening the gate, he appears “to lunge at her and then 

move away and again force his way into the home.” Then a 

female is heard screaming. The second video shows Father and 

Lincoln arriving at the home; Lincoln appears upset and 

attempts to hit Father on his chest. In response, Father pushes 

the child “against the edge of the porch (cornering him in the 

area) and ask[s] the child if he wants to be hit.” Father repeats

this several times, threatening to hit Lincoln at the front door of 

the home. The child is seen crying in the video and stops 

attempting to hold Father’s hand. Mother also provided the CSW 

with pictures of her blackened eyes and copies of several backand-forth emails with Father.

On one occasion, within 48 hours of being denied a 

permanent restraining order, Mother was outside watering the 

lawn with Lincoln when she looked up and saw Father standing 

there. She took her son by the arm and pulled him into the 

home. She stated “it was unnerving for him to show up within 

48 hours of being denied a permanent restraining order.” She 

called the police and showed them the temporary restraining 

order; however, there was nothing they could do since he was not 

“on her property.” The police advised her to follow-up in court 
4

and seek a permanent restraining order. On another occasion, 

Father showed up in the backyard of her house and knocked on 

her bedroom window.

The CSW interviewed Lincoln, who was “not easily engaged 

in conversation.” Lincoln did state, however, that he loves his 

Father and Mother. The CSW observed Lincoln to be “well 

behaved, and well-nourished.”

On April 4, 2019, Mother obtained a temporary restraining 

order against Father. Father was ordered not to harass, 

threaten, assault, or disturb the peace of Mother. He was also 

ordered not to contact Mother, either directly or indirectly, by 

telephone, mail, email, or other electronic means.

That same day, the CSW interviewed Father. He admitted 

going to Mother’s home without her consent. He acknowledged 

this is the only relationship where he had engaged in domestic 

violence but that there has only been three incidents”—an 

incident in 2004, in 2007, and an incident at Christmas 2018. 

Father stated Mother has “an alcohol problem” and that alcohol 

makes her an aggressor. He believed Mother was “the problem.” 

When the CSW asked him about the Ring videos, he stated “the 

police concluded that no crime was committed.” As to the 

incident where Father appeared at the sidewalk in front of 

Mother’s lawn, he stated he “never violated the restraining order 

. . . [as he] went to Mother’s house two days after the restraining 

order expired.” He stated Mother grabbed the child and yanked 

him away when all he wanted was to talk to his child; he felt 

“this was abusive” and was “very upset” about it.

On May 3, 2019, Mother stated Father “continues to send 

manipulative communications directly to the autistic child 

Lincoln’s phone” which caused him “to cry uncontrollably from 
5

May 3rd through May 6th, and he could not be consoled.” At this 

time, Mother had physical custody of Lincoln, as Father had 

moved to Akron, Ohio and reported he was marrying another 

woman. Father “continue[d] to announce his intention to move 

the child . . . from Los Angeles, CA to Akon, OH to live with 

[Father] and his German fiancé.”

On May 3, 2019, the juvenile court issued an order 

removing Lincoln from Father’s custody and releasing him to 

Mother.

B. Petition and Detention

On May 7, 2019, DCFS filed a petition on behalf of Lincoln, 

pursuant to Welfare & Institutions Code2 section 300, 

subdivisions (a) and (b)(1). The petition alleged Mother and 

Father have a history of violent altercations. On a prior occasion, 

Father had struck Mother with his fists, “inflicting marks and 

bruises to [Mother].” On other occasions, Father choked Mother 

and she sustained “bruising to [her] eyes.” Father’s “violent 

conduct . . . endanger[ed] the child’s physical health and safety 

and place[d] the child at risk of serious physical harm and 

damage.”

That same day, the CSW spoke to Father via telephone. 

Father explained he intended to remain in Ohio but planned to 

obtain custody of Lincoln where he can “provide a better life.”

At the detention hearing on May 8, 2018, the juvenile court 

declared Lincoln a dependent of the court and found a prima facie 

case for detaining the child from Father. The court found a 

substantial danger to the physical and emotional heath of the 

2 All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions 

Code unless otherwise indicated.
6

child and no reasonable means by which the child’s physical or 

emotional health could be protected without removing the child 

from Father’s home. The court ordered Lincoln released to 

Mother’s home under DCFS supervision. The court further 

ordered monitored visitation and monitored telephonic contact for 

Father, with visits monitored by a DCFS-approved monitor.

C. DCFS’s Continued Investigations

During a monitored FaceTime call between Father and 

child on May 25, 2019, Lincoln appeared “very excited” to speak 

with Father. They discussed sports. Father told Lincoln he 

“tried to call/message him several times but he is ‘blocked.’ ” 

During another monitored Facetime call on June 7, 2019, Father 

expressed to Lincoln how much he misses and loves him. Father, 

again, stated to Lincoln that he texted him but remains blocked, 

to which the CSW reminded Father to “keep the conversation 

appropriate.” Father became upset and stated to the CSW, 

“[Y]ou do not know anything and you cannot tell me what to do” 

and hung up. The CSW observed Lincoln appeared sad.

On June 12, 2019, DCFS reported a prior allegation of 

emotional abuse of Lincoln by Father, made in September 2013. 

Father and paternal grandmother had yelled at each other for 10 

minutes; Father was angry because Lincoln “damaged the remote 

control by spilling milk on it the day before.” Father threatened 

paternal grandmother with violence. Father had “a history of 

yelling and using profanity towards Lincoln (i.e. pay attention, 

eat the fucking food, etc.) when Mother isn’t home.” Lincoln did 

not make “any noises during the verbal abuse.” At that time 

Mother had denied Father was emotionally abusive towards 

Lincoln, and the allegations were determined to be “unfounded.”
7

DCFS completed a criminal history search and discovered 

Father had “several arrests . . . related to domestic violence, 

however, no criminal convictions.” In October 2004, Father 

punched Mother in the stomach. “It was one hit, really hard and 

[Mother] went down” and had blood coming from her mouth. She 

was admitted to UCLA hospital and he went to jail for four days. 

Mother did not press charges. Mother described to DCFS the 

additional domestic violence incidents she had experienced in 

2005, 2006, and 2007. Paternal grandmother had told Mother 

“he did the same thing to his ex.” Mother spoke with Father’s ex, 

who told Mother that Father was “aggressive.” Father’s rage 

“was crazy.” Years later, in January 2017, when Mother asked 

Father to leave, he threatened to kill her, which led her to contact 

the police and obtain a temporary restraining order.

Father told the CSW he has “never raised [his] hand to that 

woman; not in front of [his] son or away from him in his 10 years 

of life.” He stated he is “not abusive” and has never struck 

Mother. He further stated Mother had obtained a previous 

restraining order against him because she “walked in on [him] 

cheating on her.” He said, “I didn’t touch her.”

On June 17, 2019, Mother filed a request for a restraining 

order with the juvenile court, which granted it the same day. 

Father was ordered not to contact Mother, not to harass, attack, 

threaten, batter, or harass Mother, and to stay at least 100 yards 

away from Mother, her home, her workplace, and her vehicle. 

The juvenile court ordered Lincoln remain released to Mother 

under DCFS supervision.

On August 22, 2019, DCFS informed the court Father 

continued to have regular telephonic and FaceTime contacts with 

Lincoln; the “content of the conversation is always very basic” 
8

and the calls “do not last more than 10 minutes.” Lincoln 

appeared “always very happy and excited to talk to” Father. The 

CSW observed Father “tear up a few times during the calls”

prompting Mother to tell the CSW to instruct Father not to cry 

while on the phone with his son.

D. Jurisdiction and Disposition

The adjudication hearing took place on October 4, 2019. 

The juvenile court sustained the section 300 petition as alleged. 

The court also ordered Lincoln removed from Father who posed a 

substantial danger to Lincoln’s physical heath or emotional wellbeing. The court ordered placement in Mother’s home with 

monitored visitation for Father, a minimum of six hours a week.

The court-ordered case plan for Father included completion 

of a 52-week certified domestic violence course and Parents 

Beyond Conflict or a similar program. Father was also ordered to 

participate in individual counseling. The court-ordered case plan 

for Mother included enrollment in a domestic violence support 

group for victims and individual counseling.

Finally, the court reissued the temporary restraining order

and required Mother to serve it on Father, who was not present 

at the hearing.

E. Review Hearings

On February 28, 2020, the juvenile court found Father had

not been served with the restraining order papers, and granted a 

reissuance of the restraining order until the next hearing set for 

March 18, 2020.

The March 18, 2020 hearing was continued pursuant to the 

Administrative Order dated March 17, 2020 on the COVID-19 
9

pandemic. The restraining order was reissued pending the next 

hearing date.

On March 25, 2020, DCFS provided the court with a status 

report. Lincoln was observed “doing well at home and at school 

with his mother addressing any immediate needs related to his 

autism.” Lincoln remained “safe and stable in the care of his 

mother who has committed herself to providing the daily care he 

needs given his developmental level.” Meanwhile, Father 

continued to reside in Ohio and maintained “bi-weekly contact 

with Lincoln via monitored FaceTime correspondence.” Father 

shared with the CSW that he “is not in agreement with the case 

outcome and feels he is being unfairly treated.” He has not 

participated in any of the court-ordered services to date. He 

further shared with the CSW that he “is tired ‘of it’ and ‘he is 

done.’ ” Father reported he had remarried and moved on with his 

life. He told the CSW “there is no proof of anything.” He 

reiterated that Mother is “bitter and jealous with [him].” He 

acknowledged he “continues to maintain a lot of anger and 

resentment toward her.”

On July 30, 2020, Mother withdrew her request for the 

permanent restraining order because Father had moved out of 

state and she had not been able to locate his current address.

On January 25, 2021, DCFS submitted another status 

report to the juvenile court. Mother completed multiple 

parenting courses and provided certificates of completion. Father 

remained “not in agreement with why [DCFS] is involved. 

Father continues to deny any domestic violence with the mother 

which he feels she has made up to keep Lincoln from him.” 

Father stated he wanted the case to “be over and go away.” 

Father continued to reside in Ohio, but reported that he planned
10

to return to California this year. Father had not made any 

progress toward his case plan. He maintained bi-weekly 

monitored FaceTime visits with Lincoln on Wednesdays and 

Fridays.

At the section 364 review hearing on February 1, 2021, 

DCFS recommended that the court terminate dependency 

jurisdiction, award joint legal custody to both parents and sole 

physical custody to Mother, and order monitored visitation for 

Father. Mother requested sole legal and sole physical custody, 

because Father “continues to deny everything” and “has 

absolutely not participated in any portions of the case plan.” She 

also requested monitored visitation by Father. Father argued 

that while he “hasn’t completed his case plan, it kind of cuts both 

ways . . . because Mother hasn’t completed her case plan either.” 

He requested unmonitored visitation or that Lincoln be returned 

to his care because “there’s no safety concern for the child.”

The court found monitored visits appropriate. “Father was 

the perpetrator in this domestic violence relationship, and he 

never completed the case plan and is in denial about his actions.” 

Father was allowed six hours of monitored visitation per week 

with a mutually agreed-upon monitor; while Father is out of 

state, visits shall be video or telephone. The court ordered joint 

legal custody for both parents and communication between them 

via the Talking Parents app only. The court found the conditions 

that justified the initial assumption of jurisdiction under section 

300 no longer existed and were not likely to exist if supervision 

was withdrawn. The court found continued supervision of the 

child no longer necessary and terminated jurisdiction. On 

February 2, 2021, the custody order was filed and jurisdiction 

was terminated.
11

Father timely filed a notice of appeal.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

The juvenile court has broad discretion in making custody 

orders when it terminates jurisdiction in a dependency case, 

(In re Nicholas H. (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 251, 265, fn. 4

(Nicholas H.).) The “ ‘juvenile court has broad discretion to 

determine what would best serve and protect the child’s interest 

and to fashion . . . order[s] in accordance with this discretion.’ ” 

(In re Corrine W. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 522, 532.)

“ ‘The appropriate test for abuse of discretion is whether 

the trial court exceeded the bounds of reason.’ ” (In re Stephanie 

M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318–319.) As a reviewing court, we do 

not substitute our judgment for that of the juvenile court. (Id. at 

p. 319.) We do not “weigh the credibility of the witnesses or 

resolve conflicts in the evidence. [Citation.] Rather we must 

indulge in all reasonable inferences to support the findings of the 

juvenile court and must review the record in the light most 

favorable to the juvenile court’s orders.” (In re Daniel C. H.

(1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 814, 839.) Where substantial evidence 

supports the trial court’s order, there is no abuse of discretion. 

(Ibid.)

B. Applicable Law

When a juvenile court terminates jurisdiction over a 

dependent child, it may issue family law orders governing 

custody or visitation, commonly referred to as “exit orders.” 

(§ 362.4, subd. (a); In re Kenneth S., Jr. (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 

1353, 1358.) These exit orders are transferred to the family court 

to become part of the relevant family law case file or, if no 
12

proceedings are pending in family court, “may be used as the sole 

basis for opening a file in the superior court of the county in 

which the parent, who has been given custody, resides.” (§ 362.4, 

subd. (c); In re John W. (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 961, 970, fn. 13 

(John W.).) “ ‘When the juvenile court terminates its jurisdiction 

over a dependent child, section 362.4 authorizes it to make 

custody and visitation orders that will be transferred to an 

existing family court file and remain in effect until modified or 

terminated by the superior court.’ ” (In re Chantal S. (1996) 

13 Cal.4th 196, 203 (Chantal S.).)

In making custody orders, the court must “make an 

informed decision concerning the best interests of the child” 

(John W., supra, 41 Cal.App.4th at p. 972.), and its primary 

concern must be a determination of “ ‘what would best serve and 

protect the child’s interest.’ ” (In re Gabriel L. (2009) 

172 Cal.App.4th 644, 652; see also Nicholas H., supra, 

112 Cal.App.4th at p. 268; Chantal S., supra, 13 Cal.4th at 

p. 206.)

B. The Juvenile Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in 

Ordering Monitored Visitation for Father.

Father contends the juvenile court abused its discretion 

when it ordered monitored visitation between him and Lincoln. 

He believes unmonitored visitation is in Lincoln’s best interests. 

He argues no evidence shows he is a violent or abusive parent 

and the “risk of exposing Lincoln to domestic violence between 

the parents had been mitigated” as he now resides in Ohio. He 

asks us to reverse the order for monitored visitation and remand 

to the family court with directions to permit unmonitored visits.

We disagree with Father.
13

Based on a review of the record, we cannot say the juvenile 

court acted arbitrarily in ordering Father to have monitored 

visits with Lincoln. Father’s domestic violence incidents with 

Mother spanned over a decade. At least one domestic violence 

incident was in Lincoln’s presence. Similarly, there was another 

incident (on the Ring video) where Father threatened to hit 

Lincoln and cornered him on the porch simply because Lincoln 

appeared upset and had attempted to hit Father on his chest; the 

child was then seen crying and letting go of Father’s hand. We do 

not view Father’s reaction to be an appropriate response, 

especially to a child with autism.

Apart from physical incidents, Mother had told the CSW 

that Father continued to send “manipulative communications 

directly” to Lincoln, causing him “to cry uncontrollably from May 

3rd through May 6th, and he could not be consoled.”

Father indicated to DCFS that he intends on returning to 

California sometime this year. The fact that Father has not 

completed or enrolled in any of the court-ordered courses and 

case plan, as well as Father’s continued refusal to admit to any

domestic violence incidents with Mother, also demonstrates to us 

that the juvenile court’s order for continued monitored visitation 

was reasonable and appropriate. We cannot find the exit order

arbitrary or capricious.
14

DISPOSITION

The exit order is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

STRATTON, Acting P. J.

We concur:

WILEY, J.

OHTA, J.*

* Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the 

Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California 

Constitution.