Filed 1/5/22 In re R.W. CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re R.W., a Person Coming Under the 

Juvenile Court Law.

ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL 

SERVICES AGENCY,

 Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

K.A.,

 Defendant and Appellant.

 G060413

 (Super. Ct. No. 18DP1054)

 O P I N I O N

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Antony C. 

Ufland, Judge. Affirmed.

Elizabeth Klippi, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant 

and Appellant.
2

Leon J. Page, County Counsel, Karen L. Christensen and Kristen Lecong, 

Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *

When the juvenile court terminated its jurisdiction over R.W., it entered an 

exit order granting his mother, appellant K.A. (Mother), four hours of supervised 

visitation per week. Mother challenges that order on appeal, asserting the court abused 

its discretion when it failed to grant her request for more liberal visitation. We disagree 

and therefore affirm. The visitation order was well within the court’s discretion.

FACTS

This is our third opinion in this proceeding. As detailed in our previous 

unpublished opinions (In re R.W. (Oct. 19, 2020, G058884) and In re C.A. (Mar. 3, 2021,

G059464)), Mother has an extensive history of methamphetamine abuse, a related 

criminal history, and various mental health issues, including paranoia, delusions, and 

hearing voices. 

In October 2018, the Orange County Social Services Agency (Agency)

filed a juvenile dependency petition concerning Mother’s infant son, R.W., and his two 

older half-sisters,

1

based in large part on Mother’s unresolved mental health issues and 

substance abuse, as well as unresolved substance abuse by R.W.’s father. (See Welf. 

& Inst. Code,

2

§ 300, subd. (b)(1).) The juvenile court found the allegations to be true, 

sustained the petition, removed the minors from their parents’ custody, and ordered 

reunification services. Mother’s case plan included a psychiatric evaluation, individual 

counseling, drug testing, parenting education, and a substance abuse program.

1

The present appeal only concerns R.W., not his sisters. 

2

All further undesignated statutory references are to this code. 
3

In the subsequent review period, Mother visited her children on a fairly

regular basis. However, she fell asleep during some visits. She also missed numerous 

drug testing appointments, tested positive for methamphetamine several times, and was 

arrested for possession of a controlled substance.

After 12 months of family reunification services, the juvenile court 

concluded Mother had made only minimal progress in her case plan and terminated her

services in January 2020. Per the Agency’s recommendation, the court ordered four 

hours of supervised visitation with R.W. per week. In the months that followed, Mother 

continued to struggle with substance abuse and was arrested multiple times for possession 

of a controlled substance. 

At the 18-month review hearing in September 2020, the juvenile court 

placed R.W. with his father under a family maintenance plan. Per the Agency’s 

recommendation, the court also continued the visitation arrangement of four hours per 

week of supervised visitation between Mother and R.W.; R.W.’s father was not 

authorized to supervise the visits. 

Mother’s visits with R.W., which were largely virtual because of the 

ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, generally went well, with Mother engaging appropriately 

with the child. However, Mother continued to struggle with her sobriety and was arrested 

again for possession of methamphetamine and a meth pipe in September 2020; she 

admitted to the arresting officer that she has used methamphetamine “[e]very day, off 

& on, for the last [ten] to 15-years.” Mother’s visitation referral was also terminated in 

March 2021 after she missed three visitation appointments, requiring her to seek 

reinstatement. 

In anticipation of the April 2021 section 364 review hearing, the Agency 

recommended that the juvenile court terminate jurisdiction, award custody over R.W. to 

the father, and issue exit orders continuing the same visitation arrangement. The Agency 

reported Mother’s visits with R.W. were “going well with little concern,” but it also 
4

noted Mother had made “minimal progress to show the mitigation of [the] safety 

concerns which brought the child to the attention of the Juvenile Court,” and thus would 

require supervised visitation going forward. 

Mother testified on her own behalf at the section 364 review hearing. She 

agreed with the Agency’s recommendation to terminate jurisdiction, but she did not agree 

with its recommendation that she have only four hours of supervised visitation per week.

According to Mother, R.W. (now age 4) clearly enjoys their visits; he always runs up to 

her and hugs her at the beginning of their in-person visits; and he begs her not to hang up 

at the end of their virtual visits. Mother further testified that four hours of visitation 

barely gives her and R.W. enough time to get comfortable with each another, and she 

suggested eight to 10 hours of visitation per week would be more appropriate. 

During oral argument, Mother’s counsel argued for a more liberal visitation 

arrangement, asserting it would be in R.W.’s best interest. Counsel for the Agency,

R.W., and the father all asked the juvenile court to adopt the Agency’s proposed exit 

orders. 

After hearing from counsel, the juvenile court terminated jurisdiction and 

issued exit orders which granted Mother four hours of weekly supervised visitation (the 

existing arrangement). The court explained it was adopting the Agency’s

recommendations but added that Mother could ask the family court to increase visitation 

if there was some change in circumstances in the future.3 Mother filed a notice of appeal. 

3

A family court may later modify a juvenile court’s section 362.4 exit 

orders, but only if it “finds that there has been a significant change of circumstances since 

the juvenile court issued the order and modification of the order is in the best interests of 

the child.” (§ 302, subd. (d).) 
5

DISCUSSION

A juvenile court has the authority to issue an order for custody and 

visitation when dependency jurisdiction is terminated. (§ 362.4, subd. (a).) In issuing 

such an exit order, the juvenile court must “make an informed decision” that focuses on

the best interests of the child. (In re John W. (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 961, 973.) We 

review a section 362.4 exit order for abuse of discretion; we will not disturb the order 

unless the juvenile court made an arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd determination. 

(In re M.R. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 886, 902.)

Mother’s sole argument on appeal is that the juvenile court abused its 

discretion in issuing its exit order by failing to grant her more visitation time with R.W. 

According to Mother, the court had no reason to deprive her of additional visitation, and 

it was arbitrary for the court to continue with the same visitation amount as before. 

We cannot agree. The record here confirms Mother had significant 

unresolved substance abuse issues that persisted throughout R.W.’s dependency case. 

Mother failed to demonstrate any progress in addressing those issues, and she fails to 

address those issues on appeal. Although her visitation was generally appropriate and 

R.W. appeared to enjoy the visits, Mother’s behavior outside the visits prevented the 

court from moving her visits from the confines of a visitation center. Accordingly, we 

cannot say the juvenile court abused its discretion in limiting Mother’s monitored 

visitation with R.W. 

This is not a case where the juvenile court refused to allow a party to testify

about visitation or applied the wrong legal standard, so the cases Mother relies on do not 

assist her. (See S.T. v. Superior Court (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1009, 1016 (S.T.) [court’s 

application of wrong legal standard in terminating reunification services required 

reversal]; In re Roger S. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 25, 29 [court’s refusal to hear evidence on 

visitation before issuing exit order was reversible error].) The court here allowed Mother 

to present evidence, including testimony, to support her request for additional visitation. 
6

After considering all of the evidence, the juvenile court determined that no change in 

Mother’s visitation frequency was appropriate. 

Citing the rule that failure to exercise discretion is an abuse of discretion

(S.T., supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 1016), Mother asserts the juvenile court did not 

employ any discretion in crafting its visitation order, simply leaving the prior visitation 

order in place without regard to Mother’s positive visits with R.W. We disagree. The 

court weighed the evidence, heard argument from both sides, and ultimately adopted the 

Agency’s recommendation. The fact that the amount of visitation granted in the exit 

orders was the same amount afforded in the prior visitation order is not evidence the 

court failed to exercise its discretion.

DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed.

GOETHALS, J.

WE CONCUR:

O’LEARY, P. J.

ZELON, J.*

*Retired Justice of the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, assigned by the 

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