Filed 7/8/22 In re Q.T. CA2/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

In re Q.T. et al., Persons Coming 

Under the Juvenile Court Law.

 B314021

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

TONY T.,

Defendant and Appellant.

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct.

 Nos. 20CCJP04657A,

 20CCJP04657B)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County, Stacy Wiese, Judge. Affirmed.

Jesse F. Rodriguez, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
2

Dawyn R. Harrison, Acting County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, 

Assistant County Counsel, and David Michael Miller, Deputy 

County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

——————————

Tony T. (father) appeals from the juvenile court’s order 

terminating jurisdiction over his minor sons, Q.T. and A.T., and 

granting sole physical custody to their mother with unmonitored 

visitation to father. On appeal, father argues the juvenile court 

abused its discretion in not allowing father to return to the 

family’s home until he completed his case plan. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1

I. Initiation of dependency proceedings

“In August 2020, the El Monte Police Department executed 

search warrants on father’s home and his female companion’s 

home after receiving information about father distributing child 

pornography. Father resided with the mother and his children. 

Father also had a female companion and sometimes spent the 

night at her home. While executing the warrant, the police

recovered child pornography videos on father’s phone. These 

videos included 21 files depicting child pornography of young 

girls, ages two to five, which police located in a file folder in 

father’s phone. A detective concluded that father was looking for 

child pornography videos and purposefully saved them onto his 

phone based on the volume of videos and where the files were 

saved on father’s phone. 

1 A portion of the factual and procedural background is 

taken from this court’s prior opinion in In re Q.T. (Dec. 17, 2021, 

B310598) [nonpub. opn.]. On this court’s own motion, we take 

judicial notice of our prior unpublished opinion. (Evid. Code, 

§§ 452, subd. (d), 459, subd. (a).)
3

“A detective interviewed father after law enforcement 

executed a search warrant at the family home. Father conceded 

that he sent a child pornography video to his female companion.

Father denied having any further child pornography other than 

the single video. 

“After his arrest, the El Monte Police Department again 

interviewed father. Father described publishing a video 

depicting an ‘adult and child’ and described it further as ‘[s]exual 

abuse, like intercourse.’ He estimated that the girl in the video 

was ‘around 3’ years old and stated that he received the video 

from a Facebook group. When asked about his motivations for 

sending the video to his female companion, father said that he 

sent the video to her because it was ‘very interesting’ and because 

he wanted to have sex with his companion. Father described 

storing child pornography on his phone from March 2020 to 

August 2020, a period of roughly five months, although he denied 

enjoying child pornography. In executing a search warrant with 

internet service providers, the El Monte Police Department 

concluded that father uploaded the child pornography video that 

he sent to his female companion from the internet protocol (IP)

address associated with the family home. 

“While executing the search warrant at the home of father’s 

female companion, law enforcement found 25 ecstasy pills and 

21 vials of ketamine. 

“In an interview with the Los Angeles County Department 

of Children and Family Services (DCFS) . . . , father said that he 

accidentally clicked on a link from a Facebook group without 

realizing it was child pornography. He reported that the videos 

automatically downloaded to his phone. Father also denied 
4

watching the child pornography videos, with the exception of the 

video that he sent to his female companion. [¶] . . . [¶]

“In September 2020, . . . DCFS filed a Welfare and 

Institutions Code[2] section 300 petition regarding Q.T. and A.T. 

Under section 300, subdivisions (b)(1) and (d), . . . DCFS alleged 

that father’s possession of child pornography and the mother’s 

failure to protect the children from father established a basis for 

jurisdiction. Under section 300, subdivision (b)(1), . . . DCFS 

alleged that father’s drug abuse and mother’s failure to protect 

the children from father’s drug abuse created a second basis for 

jurisdiction.

“On September 8, 2020, at the detention hearing, the 

juvenile court detained the children from father and placed the 

children in the mother’s care. The juvenile court ordered that 

father was to have monitored visitation with children.” (In re 

Q.T., supra, B310598.)

II. Jurisdiction and disposition hearing

“In . . . DCFS’s interview with father for the jurisdiction

and disposition report, he described looking for videos online 

which were ‘strange and weird’ during the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Father said that he randomly clicked on videos on a pornography 

website and some of them depicted child pornography. He said 

he clicked on one video depicting an adult male having sex with a 

two-year-old girl. Father admitted watching the whole video, 

which he estimated lasted 1.5 minutes. He said the 1.5-minute 

video ‘goes by fast, and it is not a long time.’ He denied being 

sexually aroused by the child pornography. In addition, father 

[2] All statutory references are to the Welfare and 

Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
5

indicated that he placed the child pornography in a secure file

protected by a password to prevent his children from accessing

the child pornography. Father also denied knowing that it was 

illegal to possess child pornography.

“In the same report, . . . DCFS noted that father was 

engaging in therapy to address both child pornography and drugs

prior to the disposition hearing. From father’s self-reporting, the 

therapist understood that father accidentally looked at one piece 

of child pornography one time. The therapist was surprised to 

learn from . . . DCFS that there were 21 child pornography videos 

and that they involved children under the age of five.

“In the jurisdiction and disposition report, father said he 

began using drugs during the COVID-19 pandemic after he lost 

his job. Father stated that he would spend the night with his 

female companion and used the substances at her home. He said 

he would return to his home when he was no longer under the 

influence. When visiting his companion, father said he took a 

quarter pill of ecstasy to stay awake and used marijuana for 

recreational purposes. Father also indicated that he used 

ketamine to calm himself and to help him sleep. In addition, he 

also indicated that he stopped using drugs after . . . DCFS first 

interviewed him. Father voluntarily tested twice for . . . DCFS 

prior to the disposition hearing, and both tests were negative. 

The mother said she had no knowledge that father was using 

drugs and that he did not use around her or the children.

“Prior to the jurisdiction and disposition hearing, both 

parents participated in a planning meeting with two DCFS social 

workers. At the meeting, father indicated that he had a personal 

goal to stop abusing drugs.” (In re Q.T., supra, B310598.)
6

“At the time of the jurisdiction and disposition hearing, 

father was charged with two crimes related to child 

pornography.” (In re Q.T., supra, B310598.)

“On January 12, 2021, the juvenile court presided over the 

jurisdiction and disposition hearing. The parties asked the court 

to consider written exhibits and did not offer any testimony. 

Regarding father, the juvenile court sustained the allegations 

with regard to both the child pornography and drug abuse 

theories. The juvenile court made credibility determinations 

against father’s statements regarding the number of child 

pornography videos he possessed, his motivations for looking at 

the videos, and his knowledge of the legality of his actions.

Regarding the drug allegations, the juvenile court only noted that

it was sustaining the entirety of the allegations against father.

For father’s case plan, the juvenile court ordered father to do a 

sex abuse program for perpetrators, individual counseling to 

address child pornography, a parenting program, and ordered 

drug testing with the matter to be ‘walked on’ for hearing if there 

were any missed or dirty drug tests.” (In re Q.T., supra,

B310598.)

III. Six-month status review report

In its July 2021 status review report, DCFS stated that the 

children continued to reside with their mother in the family’s 

home, and that no concerns had been reported. The mother was 

receiving family maintenance services, and had been compliant 

with her case plan. She had completed a family preservation 

program, and continued to participate in a parenting education

program and individual counseling services. The mother was 

meeting all of the children’s needs, and consistently providing 

them with appropriate care and supervision. 
7

DCFS reported that father also had been overall compliant 

with his case plan. He had tested negative for drugs and alcohol 

in his on-demand tests. He was attending a parenting education 

program, and had completed eight of 10 sessions. Father’s

therapist indicated that father had been attending individual 

counseling every two weeks since September 2020. With DCFS’s 

approval, the individual counseling program included sexual 

abuse counseling for perpetrators. In a brief letter submitted to 

DCFS, the therapist stated that father “has participated well in 

counseling” by “sharing openly” and “gaining insights and lessons 

on how to improve in his role as a husband and father after 

reflecting on recent events leading to criminal and DCFS court 

cases.” The therapist also was providing conjoint counseling to 

the parents, and they had attended four sessions since September 

2020. The primary focus of the conjoint therapy was to address 

issues in the marriage due to father’s infidelity.

Father had been attending monitored visits with the

children at a local park six hours per week. Father was 

cooperative and compliant with his visitation, and no concerns

had been reported. The children expressed excitement and joy 

when visiting with father, and appeared to be comfortable with 

him. Effective June 20, 2021, DCFS liberalized father’s visits to 

unmonitored. At father’s request, the visits took place every 

Sunday from 2:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. to accommodate his work 

schedule.

In its report, DCFS noted that both the parents and 

the children wanted father to return to the family’s home. The 

parents also were requesting that the juvenile court terminate its 

jurisdiction at the next hearing with a family law order, and 

stated that they were willing to abide by the terms of such order. 
8

Father had pleaded not guilty to the charges involving child 

pornography, and the criminal case against him remained 

pending.

DCFS recommended the juvenile court terminate 

jurisdiction over the children with a family law order granting 

sole physical to the mother, legal custody to both parents, and 

unmonitored visitation to father. DCFS assessed the risk to the 

children in mother’s care as “LOW” because no new referrals 

regarding the family were being investigated, and both parents 

continued to participate in services and to show improvement 

in rebuilding their relationship. DCFS recommended, however, 

that father remain out of the family’s home because his criminal 

case had not been resolved, and he had not completed his case 

plan. In particular, DCFS wanted father to complete his 

parenting education program and to continue attending

individual counseling to address sexual abuse counseling issues.

IV. Termination of jurisdiction

On July 13, 2021, the juvenile court held a six-month 

review hearing pursuant to section 364. Counsel for the 

mother and counsel for the children submitted on DCFS’s 

recommendation that the court terminate jurisdiction and issue 

a family law order granting sole physical custody to mother, joint 

legal custody to both parents, and unmonitored visits to father. 

Counsel for DCFS opposed father’s request to return to the 

family’s home because he had not completed his case plan. 

Counsel for the children also opposed the request, noting that, 

while the children missed father, he had only recently begun 

unmonitored visits and he still needed to complete his courtordered services. Counsel for father continued to object to 
9

the court’s jurisdiction and requested the children be 

immediately returned to father’s custody.

The juvenile court ordered the termination of jurisdiction 

over the children pending the receipt of a custody order. In 

accordance with DCFS’s recommendation, the custody order 

granted joint legal custody to both parents, sole physical custody 

to mother, and unmonitored visitation to father a minimum of six 

hours per week. In adopting DCFS’s recommendation that father 

not return to the family’s home at that time, the court noted that 

father had not completed his case plan and had only begun to 

have unmonitored visits with the children. On July 16, 2021, the 

court signed the custody order and terminated its jurisdiction. 

The custody order provided that father could petition the family 

court for a change in custody once he had completed a parenting 

education program and individual counseling to address sexual 

abuse counseling for perpetrators.

Father filed a timely appeal.

DISCUSSION

On appeal, father solely challenges the portion of the 

juvenile court’s custody order limiting his contact with the 

children to unmonitored visitation. Father specifically contends 

the court abused its discretion in denying his request to return to 

the family’s home because the children were at low risk of abuse,

and it was in their best interests for father to reside with them.

I. Governing legal principles

“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.’ ” (In re Anna T.
10

(2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 870, 876; § 302, subd. (c).) Section 364,

subdivision (a) requires the juvenile court to conduct a review

hearing every six months for a dependent child who has been

placed in the physical custody of a parent. (See In re T.S. (2020)

52 Cal.App.5th 503, 512.) At a hearing held pursuant to

section 364, the juvenile court must terminate jurisdiction over

the dependent child unless the conditions that initially justified

jurisdiction still exist or are likely to exist if supervision is

withdrawn. (§ 364, subd. (c).)

When terminating jurisdiction over a dependent child, 

section 362.4, subdivision (a) authorizes the juvenile court to 

issue “an order determining the custody of, or visitation with, the

child.” Section 362.4, subdivision (b) specifies that the order 

“shall continue until modified or terminated by a subsequent 

order of the superior court,” and directs that the order be filed in

a pending family court proceeding (id., subd. (b)) or if there is

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

In making a custody or visitation order pursuant to

section 362.4, commonly referred to as an “ ‘exit order,’ ” the

juvenile court’s “ ‘focus and primary consideration must

always be the best interests of the child.’ ” (In re T.S., supra,

52 Cal.App.5th at p. 513.) The juvenile court is not restrained by

any preferences or presumptions that are ordinarily applicable in

family court. (In re Nicholas H. (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 251, 268;

accord, In re C.M. (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 101, 110 [“ ‘presumption

of parental fitness that underlies custody law in the family court

just does not apply to dependency case’ ”].) We review the

juvenile court’s decision to terminate jurisdiction and to issue an

exit 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,
11

902.) We “ ‘may not disturb the order unless the court

“ ‘ “exceeded the limits of legal discretion by making an arbitrary,

capricious, or patently absurd determination.” ’ ” ’ ” (In re M.R.,

at p. 902.)

II. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in

denying father’s request to return to the family’s

home prior to completing his case plan

In terminating jurisdiction and issuing a custody exit order, 

the juvenile court granted father unmonitored visitation with the 

children a minimum of six hours per week. While the juvenile 

court denied father’s request to return to the family’s home at 

that time, it noted that father could seek a modification of the 

order in family court once he had completed his case plan. We

conclude the juvenile court acted well within its discretion in

fashioning the custody order. 

The record reflects that, at the time of the six-month review 

hearing, the children were doing well in their mother’s care, and 

she was continuing to meet all of their physical and emotional

needs. Father had attended eight of 10 parenting education 

sessions and four conjoint counseling sessions with the mother, 

and he was participating in individual counseling that included

sexual abuse counseling for perpetrators. His weekly visits with 

the children had been monitored until three weeks prior to the 

status review hearing, when DCFS had liberalized the visitation 

schedule to unmonitored day visits. Given that father had not 

completed his case plan and had only recently transitioned to 

unmonitored visits, the juvenile court reasonably could conclude

it was in the children’s best interests that father not reside with 

them until he had shown more progress with his court-ordered 

services.
12

In challenging the custody order, father argues that “the 

present case does not involve such serious physical, sexual, or 

emotional abuse” against his two minor sons, “but only a risk

of sexual abuse.” As our Supreme Court has made clear, 

however, the juvenile court “ ‘need not wait until a child 

is seriously abused or injured to . . . take the steps necessary to

protect the child.’ ” (In re I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 773.) 

Moreover, “ ‘[s]ome risks may be substantial even if they carry a 

low degree of probability because the magnitude of the harm is 

potentially great.’ ” (Id. at p. 778.) This includes the risk that a 

child may suffer sexual abuse based on the parent’s possession 

of child pornography in the child’s home. (In re S.R. (2020) 

48 Cal.App.5th 204, 224 [“juvenile court correctly found that 

‘being involved in child pornography or some other hands-on 

sexual abuse is a great, great danger to the child and would do 

her extreme harm’ ”].) Here, father possessed 21 videos depicting 

child pornography of girls under the age of five, he published one 

of the videos to his female companion from the family’s home IP 

address, and he connected that video to his desire to have sexual 

relations with his companion. While DCFS assessed the current 

risk to the children as low in its six-month status review report, 

it did so on the basis that the children had been residing with 

their mother and no safety concerns had been reported during the 

time they were solely in her care. Indeed, DCFS’s 

recommendation that the juvenile court terminate its jurisdiction

with a family law order was contingent upon father remaining 

out of the family’s home until he made more progress with his 

case plan. 

We likewise reject father’s contention that the juvenile 

court did not have any ongoing concerns about the children’s 
13

safety in his care when it terminated jurisdiction because it 

allowed father to have unsupervised contact with the children as 

part of the custody order. As the Supreme Court has explained, 

“there are situations in which a juvenile court may reasonably 

determine that continued supervision of the minor as a 

dependent child is not necessary for the child’s protection, and at

the same time conclude that conditions on visitation are 

necessary to minimize, if not eliminate, the danger that visits 

might subject the minor to the same risk of physical abuse or 

emotional harm that previously led to the dependency 

adjudication.” (In re Chantal S. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 196, 204.) In 

such a situation, section 362.4 “authorize[s] the juvenile court to 

issue an appropriate protective order conditioning custody or 

visitation on a parent’s participation in a counseling program” or 

other services. (Ibid.) In this case, the juvenile court granted 

father unmonitored day visits with the children, but denied his 

request the children be returned to his physical custody. The 

court also stated in its custody order that father could seek 

modification of the order “once he has completed a parenting 

education program and individual counseling to address sexual 

abuse counseling for perpetrators.” Contrary to father’s claim, 

the court did not permit him to have “unconditional contact” with 

the children. Instead, the court made clear that father’s ability to 

seek joint physical custody of the children in the future was 

contingent upon his substantial compliance with his case plan.

Based on the totality of the record, including the 

seriousness of the sustained allegations against father, 

his incomplete case plan, and the relative recency of his

unsupervised visitation, the juvenile court reasonably could 

conclude the best interests of the children would be served by
14

awarding sole physical custody to the mother and unmonitored 

visits to father until father demonstrated greater progress in

addressing the issues that led to the dependency proceedings. 

Father will be able to seek modification of the custody order from 

the family court if his progress continues. On this record, the 

juvenile court’s order was not an abuse of discretion.

DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed. 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

KIM, J.*

We concur:

EDMON, P. J.

LAVIN, J.

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

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

Constitution.