Filed 5/13/14 In re Guillermo D. CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

In re GUILLERMO D., et al., Person s Coming Under the Juve nile Court Law. B252605
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK95523)

Y.N.,
Appellant,

v.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles C ounty, Carlos E. Vasquez, Judge. Affirmed. Linda Rehm, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Appellant. John F. Krattli, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel and Kristine P. Miles, Deputy County Counsel for Respondent.2

In this dependency proceeding, the juvenile court ordered that the visits between Y.N. (mother) and her three small children be monitored. Mother appeals the order as an abuse of discretion. We see no error, and so affirm the order.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND This family came to the attention of the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) in September 2012 after mother took nine

- month old Angie P. to the emergency room for treatment when she notice d a bump on the side of the child’s head. Angie had sustained a skull fracture and a possible broken rib. Mother claimed the child fell from the bed a month earlier, but gave inconsistent accounts of the incident. Angie’s attending physician stated that mother’s explanation of how Angie sustain ed her injuries was not consistent with the child’s injuries. DCFS took Angie and her siblings, Guillermo D. ( born 2007 ) and Danie la D. (born 2009) into protective custody, and filed a Welfare and Institutions Code 1
section 300 petition under subdivisions (a), (b), (e), and (j). The petition alleged, among other things, that Angie had suffered a left parietal skull fracture, intracranial bleeding to the brain, and a fracture of her left anterior 7th rib; mother’s explanation was inconsistent
with the chil d’s injuries; the injuries were consistent with non

- accidental trauma; such injuries would ordinarily not occur except as the result of deliberate, unreasonable, or neglectful acts by the child’s mother; mother failed to obtain timely necessary medical

tre atment for Angie; and the foregoing acts placed the children at risk of harm. At the detention hearing on September 18, 2012, the court found a prima facie case for detaining the children. The court ordered monitored visits for mother no less
than four hours per week. The court also ordered monitored visits for Angie’s father, Ang el P. The children were placed in the foster home of Consuelo H. In the report prepared for the jurisdiction/disposition hearing, DCFS recommen d ed
that the childr en remain i n suitable placement; it reasoned that it would be detrimental for

1 Further statutory references are to this code.3

the children to reside with mother given the nature of Angie’s injuries and the children’s young ages. DCFS also recommended that mother and Angel P. receive reunification services, and th at visitation remain monitored with discretion given to D CFS to liberalize
visits. In a Last Minute Information report filed October 19, 2012, DCFS reported on the social worker’s recent visit to the children’s foster home. Daniela and Guillermo
disclo sed to both the social worker and the foster mother that mother would h it them with a hanger and that A ngel P. would hit them with a belt. The foster mother remarked that when the children were first placed with her, they had bruises on their backs that

a ppeared to be from a belt. DCFS filed a first amended petition to include physical abuse allegations and mother’s failure to provide adequate supervision of Angie. The court ordered the children to remain detained, found Angel P. to be Angie’s presumed f ather, ordered DCFS to submit a completed due diligence for Guillermo D., and continued the hearing to November 27, 2012. At a trial setting hearing on January 11, 2013, Guillermo D. was present and found by the court to be Guillermo and Daniela’s presum ed father. The court ordered that he be provided monitored visits.
The adjudication hearing was set for May 1, 2013. A Last Minute Information filed April 29, 2013 indicated that the parents had consistently visited the children, who enjoyed the visi ts. Mother was appropriate with the children, and the foster mother had no concerns regarding any of the parents’ behavior during the visits. DCFS recommended continued family reunification services for mother, with continued
monitored visits for mother and Angel P. DCFS also recommended that Guillermo and Daniela be released to Guillermo D., a non

- offending parent who had expressed an interest in caring for the children. At the May 1 adjudication, mother pled no contest to the allegations in the

amen ded section 300 petition. The court sustained the petition under subdivision (b), specifically based on Angie’s suffering from a left parietal skull fracture due to the4

mother’s insufficient supervision and mother and Angel P.’s inappropriate, excessive

p hysical discipline of Guillermo and Daniela by the use of a hang e r and a belt. Guillermo and Daniela were ordered to be placed with their father , who was to be provided with family maintenance services. Angie continued in her foster placement

. Reunifi cation services were ordered for mother, as were unmonitored visits for mother with the children in a public setting for no more than two hours at a time, with DCFS given discretion to liberalize. In the Status Review Report for the October 30, 2013 he aring, the social worker reported that Guillermo and Daniela continued to reside with their father, who complied
with court

- ordered programs but struggled to address Guillermo’s defiant behavior. Daniela also had a difficult adjustment, but was doing well in Guillermo D.’s care. Angie was doing well in her foster home and was very attached to her foster parents. Mother was compliant with her case plan, attending a parenting program and individual therapy, and consistently visiting the children. Mother’s therapist submitted a progress report stating that mother was doing everything that was required in order to get her children back. Mother had benefited from individual therapy and learned parent

- child
communication skills in a manner that fostered bette r understanding of the children’s
behaviors and contributed to their well

- being. She took responsibility for not having been able to protect Angie, and dedicated herself to making the best of all of her reunification service programs. However, the soci al worker noted that on October 1, DCFS received a referral alleging physical abuse towards Daniela, who had a one

- inch laceration above her right eye and three one

- inch abrasions on her neck. Daniela and Guillermo told the social worker and the police th at mother had grabbed and scratched Daniela on the neck because she was misbehaving during a September 28, 2013 visit. The children gave different accounts of the injuries. Mother had sought assistance from her attorney, her parenting instructor, and Ang ie’s foster mother to bring the matter to DCFS’s attention. In a Team Decision Meeting convened after this incident, the parties decided that5

mother’s visits would revert to monitored until the October 30 hearing, and that
Guillermo and Daniela would re main with their father. On October 30, 2013, the court held the hearing under section 463 for Guillermo and Daniela, and under secti o n 366.21, subdivision (e) for Angie. DCFS recommended
that mother continue to receive reunification services and that her visits be monitored. It also recommended that Angie be returned to her father Angel P., and that family maintenance services be provided to both fathers. The court ordered that Angie be placed in home

- of

- parent father with family
maintenance services. The court ordered “family enhancement” services for mother and continued jurisdiction over the case. As to Guillermo and Daniela, the court also found that continued jurisdiction was necessary, as the conditions justifying jurisdiction
continued and Gui llermo D. needed to complete his case plan. The court ordered continued reunification services for mother. Although moth er requested that her visits
remain unmonitored, the court ordered monitored visits. Mother timely filed a notice of appeal, challe nging the court’s visitation order.

DISCUSSION
Mother ’s sole challenge to the juvenile court orders is the proviso that h er visits
with the children be monitored. A visitation order is reviewed for abuse of discretion. ( Bridget A. v. Superior Court (20 07) 148 Cal.App.4th 285, 300. ) A juvenile court is afforded great discretion in deciding issues relating to parent

- child visitation, and a reviewing court will not disturb such discretion on appeal unless the juvenile court has
exceeded the bounds of reas on. ( In re S.H. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1542, 1557

- 1558.) A
court abuses its discretion when it makes a determination that is “ ‘arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd.’” ( In re Mark V. (1986 ) 177 Cal.App.3d 754, 759, quoting In re Geoffrey G. (1979) 9 8 Cal.App.3d 412, 421.) “ When two or more inferences can reasonably be deduced from the facts, the reviewing court has no authority to substitute
its decisi on for that of the trial court. ” ( In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318

- 3 19 .)6

Here, the ju venile court took jurisdiction of the three minors due to mother’s failure to adequate ly supervise her infant, and her inappropriate physical discipline of the two older children. Based on her progress during the reunification period, mother’s visits
had been changed from monitored to unmonitored. However, five months after mother
commenced unmonitored visits, Daniela received injuries which she reported were inflicted by mother grabbing and scratching her on the neck because she was misbehaving during a visit. Daniela’s bro ther, Guillermo, confirmed that mother caused Daniela’s injuries. The court’s decision to proceed cautiously and order monitored visits did not exceed the bounds of reason. Mother’s history of inappropriate physical discipline of h er young children, coupled with her recent conduct in grabbing and scratching Daniela for misbehaving during an unmonitored visit, fully support the juvenile court’s order that
mother’s visits be monitored.

DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

MINK, J. 

We concur:

MOSK, ACTING P.J. KRIEGLER, J.

 Retired Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, sec tion 6 of the California Constitution.