1

Filed 7/26/21 In re K.A. CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(El Dorado)

----

In re K.A. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile 

Court Law.

C093012

EL DORADO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN 

SERVICES AGENCY,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

B.A.,

Defendant and Appellant.

(Super. Ct. Nos. 

SDP20190030 & 

SDP20190031)

B.A., father of the minors, K.A. (age 6) and H.A. (age 8), appeals from the

juvenile court’s visitation order. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 362.1.)1 He contends there was

insufficient evidence to support the order for supervised visitation. We will affirm the

juvenile court’s order.

1

 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
2

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Juvenile Dependency Petition and Detention Hearing

On October 9, 2018, Lassen County Child and Family Services (Lassen CFS) and 

a police officer responded to a call at B.A.’s home. It was reported that the minors K.A. 

and H.A.’s half sibling, A.E., had told a friend that B.A. paid her older brother to touch 

her in private places. A.E., however, denied the allegations and had no known older 

brother. Subsequently, the minors’ mother V.A. (Mother) reported to Lassen CFS that 

she believed B.A. produced child pornography because she found a SanDisk card in 

appellant’s things which had pictures of the minors naked and posed. Mother agreed to a 

safety plan that she would not allow B.A. to have any contact with the children, file a 

restraining order against him, and seek Lassen CFS services. However, it was reported 

that B.A. was in the home thereafter, and an emergency multidisciplinary interview 

(MDI) was scheduled and the children were taken to the district attorney’s office for an 

interview.

During the MDI, half sibling A.E. disclosed that at the approximate age of six she 

was living in Nevada and was home alone with B.A. when an unidentifiable man came to 

the home, spoke with B.A. about money, and then sexually assaulted her while B.A. left 

the room. A.E. reported she took the pictures on the SanDisk card because they were 

having a fashion show and included pictures in the bath and pictures she did not take. A

police detective attempted to interview H.A., however, the detective alleged that H.A. 

had been heavily coached. Mother claimed B.A. was not living in the home he had just 

been visiting. B.A. was interviewed regarding the allegations and stated he did not know 

why A.E. made such accusations and felt she needed mental help.

On November 7, 2018, Lassen CFS filed a juvenile dependency petition for the 

children K.A. and H.A. against B.A. and Mother alleging in part that the half sibling’s 

allegations against B.A. of sexual exploitation placed K.A. and H.A. at risk of physical 

and emotional harm, damage, danger, and sexual abuse. Lassen CFS recommended the 
3

minors be detained from B.A. and he be offered services but contact between the minors 

and B.A. would be detrimental to the minors’ well-being.

At the November 8, 2018, detention hearing, B.A. denied the allegations of the 

petition. The juvenile court found a prima facie showing was made that the children 

came within section 300 and ordered them detained from B.A. The court permitted B.A.

to have supervised in-person visitation with his children one time per week, for a total of 

two hours, with no other contact. The court ordered services be provided as soon as 

possible to reunify the children and family.

As of the date of the November 21, 2018, jurisdiction report, no visitation 

occurred because B.A. was working in Nevada and had difficulty with traveling.

Jurisdictional Hearing

The juvenile court held a jurisdictional hearing on November 26, 2018. B.A.

submitted on the November 7, 2018, petition and filed a waiver of rights. Accordingly, 

by a preponderance of the evidence the allegations in the petition were held to be true.

Disposition Report and Disposition Hearing

The disposition report filed on December 6, 2018, indicated that both parents had

not met with Lassen CFS since the jurisdictional hearing. According to the report, 

Lassen CFS attempted several times to contact Mother since the jurisdictional hearing, 

and Mother failed to meet with Lassen CFS. The report further indicated that no

visitation occurred and discussed contacts made with Mother about visitation, however, 

did not indicate any contact was made with B.A. as to his visitation. Lassen CFS stated it 

was not able to develop a case plan for the parents’ services “due to their lack of

participation.” Lassen CFS provided a case plan for the children only.

At the December 10, 2018, disposition hearing, counsel stipulated to disposition

and the court found clear and convincing evidence of circumstances justifying removal of 

the children from B.A. under section 361, subdivision (c)(1). B.A. had no objection to 

the county counsel’s request that he report to Lassen CFS to set a case plan.
4

Interim Reports and Hearing

In advance of a scheduled interim hearing, the minors’ court-appointed special 

advocate (CASA) filed a CASA report and recommendations on January 3, 2019. The 

CASA reported that B.A. had two visits with the children the week prior to when the 

report was filed and that visitation was an issue because B.A. lived some distance from 

the minors’ placement. On January 4, 2019, Lassen CFS filed a supplemental report to 

the dispositional report filed on December 6, 2018. B.A. met with Lassen CFS after the 

dispositional hearing and participated in the development of his case plan. B.A.’s case 

plan included general counseling, a parenting education program, and a substance abuse 

outpatient program with submission to drug and alcohol testing. At the January 7, 2019,

interim hearing, counsel stipulated to the Lassen CFS proposed case plan for B.A.

Six-month Review Reports and Hearing

In advance of the scheduled six-month review, the CASA filed a report and 

recommendations on June 6, 2019. The CASA reported that during a supervised visit 

between B.A. and the minors, the minors were playful with B.A. for the first part of the 

visit and the visit was normal. On June 14, 2019, Lassen CFS filed a status review report 

recommending that family reunification services (FRS) continue for B.A. B.A. made 

weekly contact with Lassen CFS since his case plan started, attended visits on a weekly 

basis, and checked in with Lassen CFS and provided drug testing. B.A. moved to more 

time and less supervision for his visitation with the goal of beginning overnight visits in 

the near future. Lassen CFS reported that the prognosis of the children returning to B.A.

was likely.

The court held B.A.’s continued section 366.21, subdivision (e) review hearing on 

June 24, 2019. The hearing was set for contest on July 2, 2019, by Mother because 

Lassen CFS recommended to terminate FRS for her. The court adopted Lassen CFS’s

recommendation to terminate FRS for Mother and ordered FRS continue for B.A.
5

12-month Review Reports and Hearing

Lassen CFS filed a report recommending B.A. continue to be provided FRS. B.A. 

complied with his case plan and attended therapy every two weeks to address the issues 

of his sexual exploitation charge and his substance abuse history. Additionally, he 

completed a parent education, coparenting, and family stabilization course. He began 

overnight visitation every weekend with his children and after his roommates’ 

background check completion, he continued his overnight visits in his home. Lassen 

CFS recommended the family would be best served by transferring the case to the county 

of B.A.’s residence.

At the December 9, 2019, section 366.21, subdivision (f) 12-month review 

hearing, the court found that B.A. substantially complied with his case plan and ordered 

his FRS to continue finding that there was a substantial probability return of the children 

to B.A. by the 18-month permanency hearing date. The court granted the request to 

transfer the juvenile dependency case to El Dorado County, California where B.A. 

resided.

Interim Report and Hearing

Following transfer to El Dorado County, on February 18, 2020, the El Dorado 

County Health and Human Services Agency/Social Services/Child Protective Services 

(El Dorado CPS) filed an interim report. El Dorado CPS detailed concerns about B.A.’s 

mental health services not addressing the issues that originally brought him to the 

attention of child protective services. El Dorado CPS spoke with B.A.’s therapist and 

was informed that Lassen CFS did not inform him that he was to address the sexual 

exploitation and sexualized behaviors with B.A., which were outside his scope of 

practice. Further, El Dorado CPS reported that B.A.’s previous parenting class was 

insufficient and his drug testing was infrequent and requested B.A. participate in an 

updated substance abuse assessment. El Dorado CPS conducted a home visit but was not 

permitted to enter by B.A.’s roommate while B.A. was not at home. There was a 
6

marijuana scent when B.A.’s roommate opened the door. El Dorado CPS informed 

Lassen CFS of their concerns about finding marijuana on the counter and beer in the 

restroom when they returned a few days later to conduct a home inspection. El Dorado 

CPS’s assessment stated that B.A.’s case plan services appeared appropriate, but felt he 

had not alleviated the concerns that brought the family to the attention of the court as the 

services he engaged in were inadequate “to meet his needs.” El Dorado CPS noted

concern about the overnight visitation and recommended that B.A. travel to the area of 

the children’s placement, reducing his visitation to a minimum of one time weekly for 

four hours.

The Douglas County Sheriff’s Department supplemental narrative was also 

included in the interim report, opining that the inappropriate photographs of the children 

previously alleged to have been taken by B.A. were taken by another child. The child,

H.A., disclosed that her half sibling had taken “ ‘bad’ ” pictures of her. The sheriff’s 

department deemed the case inactive.

At the March 4, 2020, continued transfer in review hearing, El Dorado CPS 

informed the court that B.A.’s case plan was updated to reflect services needed for 

reunification. The court adopted the case plan as submitted.

18-month Review Report and Hearing

On May 1, 2020, El Dorado CPS filed a section 366.22 review report indicating 

that B.A. agreed to participate in the court-ordered services with the service providers 

recommended by El Dorado CPS. B.A. began random urinalysis and tested positive for 

THC. B.A. attempted to engage in court-ordered services but was unable to start some 

services due to the closure of the community service providers on direction of the 

statewide shelter-in-place order. B.A. completed his drug and alcohol program and 

attended Alcoholics Anonymous meetings weekly, but it was determined he did not 

qualify for substance use disorder treatment. He started an intake packet from 

Professional Services Associates, an organization he was referred to in order to address 
7

the sexual exploitation of the minors’ sibling. Following the shelter-in-place order, B.A. 

had video chat visitation with the minors at a minimum of two times per week. 

El Dorado CPS’s assessment indicated that although B.A. participated or 

attempted to participate in services, significant progress could not be determined. 

Because B.A. was unable to make progress with the court-ordered services due to service 

providers being closed, El Dorado CPS recommended he continue with court-ordered 

services in order to be able to make substantial progress towards reunification and 

requested the section 366.22 18-month review hearing continued 90 days. The court 

granted the request.

El Dorado CPS filed an addendum report on July 20, 2020, noting that the minors 

reportedly enjoyed visits with the parents. Both children stated they would like to reunite 

with both parents and described the best case scenario in which they spent half of their 

time with Mother and the other half with B.A.

Appellant continued to engage in services and attended weekly meetings with

Professional Services Associates in order to address the sexual exploitation allegations. 

B.A. was rated at a low risk of recidivism based on the risk assessments. After speaking 

to B.A.’s counselor at Professional Services Associates, El Dorado CPS noted concern 

about whether B.A. benefitted from the treatment because he withheld “pertinent”

information and failed to disclose details associated with the original allegations. B.A. 

informed his therapist he felt the allegations were fabricated. B.A. visited with the 

children once weekly and participated in video chat visits that were monitored by the 

foster family. The children were excited for the video visits but had trouble focusing 

during the calls. El Dorado CPS assessed that there was a substantial likelihood for 

reunification and believed it was in the best interests of the children to continue FRS.

On July 29, 2020, the court held the section 366.22 18-month review hearing. 

B.A. did not oppose El Dorado CPS’s request to continue the 18-month review hearing 
8

and requested the court set the matter for contest. The court set the contested 18-month 

review hearing for August 28, 2020.

El Dorado CPS filed an additional addendum report on August 25, 2020, noting 

that B.A. continued to attend weekly nurturing parenting groups facilitated by El Dorado 

CPS and completed the program. El Dorado CPS’s assessment indicated that reunifying 

and returning the children with Mother would be in the children’s best interest. El 

Dorado CPS believed B.A. had not addressed the issues that brought him before the court

and lacked insight into the case and his responsibilities for reunification with the children. 

Further, El Dorado CPS was concerned that K.A. reported that B.A. told him an El 

Dorado CPS social worker was a “ ‘monster’ ” and a bad person who wants to keep the 

minors away from their father. Therefore, El Dorado CPS recommended B.A. continue 

receiving visitation enhancement services to address the substantiated allegations to 

ensure appropriate visitation could continue.

On August 28, 2020, the court held a contested 18-month review hearing. El 

Dorado CPS’s counsel requested the court return the children to Mother and B.A. receive 

reunification services. Appellant did not oppose the request that the children be returned 

to Mother’s care but requested a contested hearing as to B.A.’s services. The minors’ 

counsel agreed with return to Mother but requested that B.A.’s reunification services be 

terminated. The court ordered that B.A. receive visitation enhancement services, ordered 

return of the children to Mother, and continued the 18-month review hearing.

Contested Section 366.22 18-month Review Hearing

On September 18, 2020, the court held the contested section 366.22 18-month 

review hearing. The minors’ counsel joined in El Dorado CPS’s recommendation to 

provide visitation enhancement services. The court discussed B.A.’s consistent 

participation in services and its concern with reinstituting B.A.’s unsupervised visitation. 

The court was concerned about reinstituting the visitation because there was no full and 

complete information about where B.A. lived and who resided with him. The court was 
9

also concerned with B.A.’s “lack of candor on the part of the sexual offender therapist.” 

The court requested a report indicating the therapist believed there was no risk to the 

children before allowing unsupervised visits. The court observed, “I do think that he’s in 

denial about the factual allegations that were sustained by the court in Lassen County and 

what his -- what his potential culpability is as it relates to reunification with his children, 

and at the end of the day, I have to make a decision based on the best interest of the 

children, and the best interest of the children are having parents who aren’t discussing the 

case with them, are fully participating in court-ordered counseling, and do whatever they 

need to do to try and satisfy the concerns that brought them -- brought their case and their 

family before the [c]ourt.”

El Dorado CPS clarified that B.A. had in fact been getting approximately 

eight‐hour unsupervised visits during the day. B.A. agreed to continuing his counseling, 

participation in the 12-step meetings, and random testing whenever El Dorado CPS 

requested it. El Dorado CPS confirmed B.A. had provided his temporary address. 

El Dorado CPS Social Worker Galina Melamed testified that she supervised the 

social worker assigned to B.A.’s dependency case and the assigned social worker no

longer worked in the child protective services department. Melamed did not personally 

review all of the files from Lassen CFS but was aware that B.A. had unmonitored

overnight and weekend visits with the minors. El Dorado CPS did not change the

overnight visitation order until February 19, 2020, but did not file a request of change in 

court order. However, El Dorado CPS recommended unmonitored day visits at the 

hearing. 

When asked about a report that the child H.A. displayed traumatized behavior 

after beginning overnight visits with B.A. where she would wake up screaming “[g]et off 

me” and covering her vaginal area, Social Worker Melamed testified that was a factor in 

her recommendation. Melamed testified that from her observation of B.A. berating his 

caseworker and his denial of the allegations, he was not taking the case seriously. 
10

Melamed testified B.A. would berate the caseworker and testified about one instance 

when the child K.A. expressed anger because he heard B.A. call the caseworker a 

monster, declaring that his father does not lie. She confirmed that it was her 

recommendation B.A. continue his unsupervised day visits as long as he continued to 

participate meaningful in his enhancement services.

B.A.’s counsel requested the court order B.A.’s visitation to remain as 

unsupervised day visits as there was no evidence of risk to the children. El Dorado 

CPS’s counsel submitted on the report and the recommendation that the children be 

placed with Mother and B.A. receive enhancement services while continuing to receive 

visitation as previously ordered but if the visitation was supervised, the enhancement 

services would no longer be necessary. After hearing additional information during the 

hearing, the minors’ counsel recommended more stringent than court-ordered 

requirements for B.A.’s visitation and that B.A.’s services be terminated because she was 

concerned about B.A.’s inappropriate comments about the caseworker. Mother’s counsel 

joined the minors’ counsel’s position.

The juvenile court stated it had concerns that there was no action by El Dorado 

CPS to change the visitation given the allegations that were made. The court took issue 

with B.A. denying the sexual allegations that were reported and his statement claiming 

that all charges were dropped. However, the court acknowledged that there were no 

criminal charges because the half sibling recanted. Further, the court noted that despite 

previously warning B.A. to “have no discussions whatsoever with either of the children 

related to this action whatsoever,” K.A. reported that B.A. called the caseworker a 

“monster.” Based on B.A.’s conduct, the court was “stunned that there wasn’t a request 

for supervised visitation” from El Dorado CPS. The court indicated it wanted supervised 

visitation for B.A. initially but would revisit the issue once the court heard information 

from the therapist about “controls” to put in place to ensure that the children were 

protected during visits. The court stated it wanted to set an interim hearing date to get a 
11

report from the therapist and get reports concerning any testing and 12-step meetings 

B.A. participated in as well as a report on supervised visitation. 

The court ordered supervised contact between B.A. and the children for a 

frequency of four hours once a week or twice a week for two hours and did not terminate 

B.A.’s services. At the close of the hearing, the court set an interim hearing.

B.A. filed a timely filed a notice of appeal on November 9, 2020.

DISCUSSION

As his sole contention on appeal, B.A. contends the juvenile court abused its 

discretion in ordering supervised visitation. Specifically, B.A. contends the juvenile

court erred in considering factors that did not indicate a finding contrary to the best 

interests of the children, such as B.A.’s comment about his caseworker. As we shall 

explain, the claim lacks merit.

Section 362.1 provides in part: “(a) In order to maintain ties between the parent or

guardian and any siblings and the child, and to provide information relevant to deciding

if, and when, to return a child to the custody of his or her parent or guardian, or to

encourage or suspend sibling interaction, any order placing a child in foster care, and

ordering reunification services, shall provide as follows: [¶] (1)(A) Subject to

subparagraph (B), for visitation between the parent or guardian and the child. Visitation

shall be as frequent as possible, consistent with the well-being of the child. [¶] (B) No

visitation order shall jeopardize the safety of the child. . . .” (§ 362.1; see In re Daniel C. 

H. (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 814, 838-839 [visitation may be limited if the juvenile court 

finds it is not in the child’s best interest].)

A visitation order “necessarily involves a balancing of the interests of the parent in

visitation with the best interests of the child. In balancing these interests, the court in the

exercise of its judicial discretion should determine whether there should be any right to

visitation and, if so, the frequency and length of visitation.” (In re Jennifer G. (1990)

221 Cal.App.3d 752, 757.) In visitation matters, the juvenile court is accorded broad
12

discretion. We review an order setting visitation for abuse of that discretion. (In re R.R.

(2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1264, 1284.) “ ‘ ‘The appropriate test for abuse of discretion is

whether the trial court exceeded the bounds of reason. When two or more inferences can

reasonably be deduced from the facts, the reviewing court has no authority to substitute

its decision for that of the trial court.” ’ ” (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318-

319.)

Here, after considering the statements and opinions of the social workers, service

providers, and therapists, the court concluded that visitation needed to return to 

supervised as unsupervised was no longer appropriate nor was it in the best interests of 

the minors. In so concluding, the court expressed concern with the fact that B.A. had 

made inappropriate comments to the minors about their caseworker and had denied the 

sexual allegations. The court advised it wanted further information before ordering 

unsupervised visitation, including a report from the therapist, reports concerning any 

testing and 12-step meetings B.A. participated in, and a report on supervised visitation. 

Thus, the court concluded supervised visitation, at least until the next interim 

hearing, was appropriate and in the minors’ best interests “to ensure that the children are 

protected during those visits.” “ ‘The trial judge, having heard the evidence, observed the

witnesses, their demeanor, attitude, candor or lack of candor, is best qualified to pass

upon and determine the factual issues presented by their testimony. This is especially

true where the custody of minor children is involved. . . . Where minds may reasonably

differ, it is the trial judge’s discretion and not that of the appellate court which must

control.’ ” (In re Marriage of Lewin (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 1482, 1492.) We do not

substitute our judgment for that of the trial court.

B.A. asserts the evidence of his engagement with court-ordered services

established that unsupervised visitation would be in the minors’ best interests. However, 

complying with the reunification plan by attending the required therapy sessions and 

parenting classes and visiting the child does not guarantee return of the child. (In re 
13

Dustin R. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1131, 1143; In re Joseph B. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 890, 

899-901.) While compliance with the plan is a pertinent consideration, it is not the sole 

concern for the juvenile court, nor is it determinative. (In re Dustin R., at pp. 1139-1140; 

In re Joseph B., at pp. 899-901.) Rather, the decision to return the child to parental 

custody depends on the court’s assessment of the effect the return would have on the 

physical and emotional well-being of the child. (§ 366.21, subd. (f).) In light of the 

circumstances here, it was reasonable for the court to take appropriate steps to carefully 

control the transition from supervised to unsupervised visits to ensure the well-being of 

the minors. The court observed, “I do think that he’s in denial about the factual 

allegations that were sustained by the court in Lassen County and what his -- what his 

potential culpability is as it relates to reunification with his children, and at the end of the 

day, I have to make a decision based on the best interest of the children, and the best 

interest of the children are having parents who aren’t discussing the case with them, are 

fully participating in court-ordered counseling, and do whatever they need to do to try 

and satisfy the concerns that brought them -- brought their case and their family before 

the [c]ourt.” Further, the court properly noted the lack of reporting on B.A.’s prior visits 

and reporting from his therapist on sexual behaviors. It was appropriate and reasonable 

for the court to order supervised visitation on a temporary basis to allow El Dorado CPS 

to gather more information about B.A.’s behavior with the minors and B.A.’s progress in 

therapy. Based on the record before us, we cannot conclude the juvenile court’s order for 

supervised visitation “ ‘ “exceed[s] the limits of legal discretion by making an arbitrary, 

capricious, or patently absurd determination.” ’ ” (In re Stephanie M., supra, 7 Cal.4th at 

p. 318.)

We conclude the evidence supported the juvenile court’s exercise of discretion to

order supervised visitation.
14

DISPOSITION

The juvenile court’s visitation order is affirmed.

 /s/

HOCH, J.

We concur:

 /s/

ROBIE, Acting P. J.

 /s/

RENNER, J.