Filed 11/12/13 In re Allen P. CA4/1 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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. 

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

DIVISION ONE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

In re ALLEN P., JR., a Person Coming 

Under the Juvenile Court Law. 

SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

 v. 

AMANDA D., 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

 D063989 

 (Super. Ct. No. EJ3597) 

 APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Gary M. 

Bubis, Judge. Affirmed. 

 Andrea R. St. Julian, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant 

and Appellant. 
2 

 Thomas E. Montgomery, County Counsel, John E. Philips, Chief Deputy County 

Counsel, and Patrice Plattner-Grainger, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and 

Respondent. 

 Amanda D. appeals a juvenile court order requiring her visitation with her son, 

Allen P., Jr., (Allen) be supervised. She contends substantial evidence does not support 

the order. We affirm. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

 On February 17, 2012, the Tulare County social services agency petitioned under 

Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b) on behalf of twoyear-old Allen on the basis of domestic violence between Allen's father, Allen P., Sr., 

(the father), and Amanda. The father had thrown a remote control device across a room 

and struck Allen's sister, three-year-old Madison D., on her face, causing bruising. 

Amanda had a history of obtaining restraining orders against the father and then allowing 

him back into the family home. The petition also alleged there had been juvenile 

dependency proceedings concerning Allen's sibling, Levi D., in 2005. Amanda 

successfully reunited with Levi, but then had not protected him from physical abuse by 

the father, and the father had struck Levi in the head multiple times. The petition also 

alleged Amanda had neglected Levi's hygiene and medical needs, had been unable to 

manage his out-of-control behavior and had not attended conjoint therapy or followed 

treatment recommendations for him. Each parent had been arrested for inflicting 

corporal injury on Levi and had served time in custody. Levi was living with a relative in 

Texas. 
3 

 When police officers took Madison into protective custody, Amanda became 

combative and was arrested for resisting arrest. Allen was visiting the father in San 

Diego County at the time.1 The father brought him to Tulare County so he could be 

taken into protective custody. The court ordered Allen detained in out-of-home care and 

ordered supervised visits for each parent. The social worker recommended denying 

reunification services for Amanda because she had received many months of services in 

Levi's case. The social worker recommended offering six months of services to the 

father. 

 On March 28, 2012, the Tulare County Juvenile Court found the allegations of the 

petitions to be true. It declared Allen a dependent of the court and ordered reunification 

services for the father, but denied them for Amanda. 

 The social worker reported Amanda appeared to have difficulty controlling her 

anger. She yelled and used derogatory names during telephone calls with the social 

worker. She had weekly supervised visits with Allen and repeatedly tried to bring her 

boyfriend or other individuals to the visits. Madison and Allen's relative caregivers 

reported Madison and Allen acted up after visits with Amanda. 

 Allen and the father had visits only about once each month because of the distance 

between San Diego County and Tulare County. Their visits were appropriate and 

 

1 Amanda and the father had been awarded joint legal custody of Allen; Amanda 

was given physical custody and the father had one week of unsupervised visitation each 

month. 
4 

progressed to being unsupervised. The father also participated in a 52-week domestic 

violence prevention program. 

 In June 2012, Amanda's parental rights to Levi were terminated. In August, she 

lost her parental rights to Madison. Meanwhile, the father made progress in services and 

had positive visits and telephone conversations with Allen. In September, Allen was 

placed with him in the home of the paternal grandparents. In October, the San Diego 

County Juvenile Court accepted transfer of the case from the Tulare County Juvenile 

Court. Amanda moved from Tulare County to Southern California and had weekly visits 

with Allen. The grandparents reported she had difficulty taking on a parental role and did 

not have control over Allen during visits. 

 In January 2013, the father began an in-home parenting program. He also 

continued his participation in the domestic violence program. He was employed and 

spent his free time with Allen. In February, Amanda moved to the State of Washington 

for a short time, but then returned to California. Her visits with Allen became more 

regular, and Allen was excited when they got to see each other. Staff at the visitation 

center reported their visits were positive and affectionate. 

 The social worker reported Amanda had been offered 43 months of services in 

Levi's cases. Amanda's therapist in Tulare County reported she had been diagnosed with 

"Depressive Disorder" and "Borderline Personality Disorder with Dependent Personality 

Traits" and with seizures. The therapist said Amanda was resistant to therapy. 

 At a review hearing on April 30, 2013, Amanda's counselor testified he worked as 

a therapeutic behavioral specialist and supervised cases and trained therapists for an 
5 

agency in Temecula. He also was Amanda's pastor. He was not a licensed social worker 

or a credentialed therapist. He had met with Amanda for one hour each week for about 

four months and said they were addressing her issues of depression and anxiety. He said 

she had become less emotional and was calmer than when their counseling sessions 

began. He said he was aware she had lost two children to adoption but, in his opinion, 

she had never posed a risk to them, and he did not see a problem with her having Allen in 

her care without supervision. He was not aware she had been diagnosed with a 

borderline personality disorder, and he had not received copies of the juvenile court 

documents concerning Levi and Madison or the earlier reports concerning Allen. 

 Amanda testified she received disability income for a seizure disorder, with which 

she had been diagnosed in 2007. She took medication for the seizure disorder and for 

depression. She said she did not know she had been diagnosed with a borderline 

personality disorder. She said she had addressed some of her past domestic violence 

issues with her counselor and would rely on him for help with anger issues. 

 After considering the evidence and argument by counsel, the court found the 

father had made substantive progress with the provisions of his case plan, Amanda had 

made some progress, and there no longer was a protective issue. The court advised 

Amanda to participate in therapy with a licensed therapist, complete a domestic violence 

program and develop a safety plan for what to do if she had a seizure when Allen was in 

her care. It awarded Amanda and the father joint legal custody, the father sole physical 

custody, ordered supervised visitation for Amanda and terminated jurisdiction. 

DISCUSSION 
6 

 Amanda contends substantial evidence does not support the order requiring her 

visitation be supervised. She argues her visits with Allen have been positive, and there 

was no substantial evidence she had a borderline personality disorder, no showing how 

such a diagnosis would pose a danger to Allen and no evidence her seizure disorder ever 

interfered with her ability to care for him. She also argues since Allen's dependency 

began because of the father's domestic violence and Allen now has been placed with the 

father, it makes no sense to restrict her visitation.

Legal Principles

 In making visitation orders, the juvenile court must consider the child's best 

interests. (In re Jennifer G. (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 752, 757.) It must consider the 

totality of the child's circumstances when making decisions regarding the child. (In re 

Chantal S. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 196, 201.) The court's orders regarding visitation may be 

reversed only upon a clear showing of an abuse of discretion. (In re Emmanuel R. (2001) 

94 Cal.App.4th 452, 465.) " '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.' [Citation.]" (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318-

319.) 

Application

 Amanda has not shown the court abused its discretion by requiring her visits with 

Allen continue to be supervised. She had previously been arrested and served time in 

custody for inflicting corporal injury on a child. She yelled at the social workers, 
7 

showing she had difficulty controlling her anger. She shouted at Allen during some 

visits, and when Allen and Madison were first removed from her care, their caregivers 

reported they showed negative behavior after visits with her. She had been offered many 

months of services in Levi's cases, but reunification was not successful, and her parental 

rights to Levi and Madison had been terminated. Her previous therapist had said she was 

resistant to therapy, and her previous parenting instructor was worried about her ability to 

implement the skills presented in class. The court expressed concern that her borderline 

personality disorder condition was difficult to treat and encouraged her to participate in 

therapy with a licensed therapist, complete a domestic violence program and develop a 

safety plan for what actions would be taken if she had a seizure when Allen was in her 

care. 

 Amanda has not shown the court abused its discretion by requiring her visits with 

Allen continue to be supervised. 

DISPOSITION 

 The order is affirmed. 

 

NARES, J. 

WE CONCUR: 

 

BENKE, Acting P. J. 

 

IRION, J.