Court Opinion

ID: 9409827
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-19 17:04:21.599371+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:53.836043
License: Public Domain

Filed 7/19/23 In re R.F. CA2/6
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

 In re R.F. et al., Persons                                  2d Juv. No. B325154
 Coming Under the Juvenile                                 (Super. Ct. Nos. J072734,
 Court Law.                                                        J072735)
                                                              (Ventura County)

 VENTURA COUNTY HUMAN
 SERVICES AGENCY,

      Plaintiff and Respondent,

 v.

 V.G.,

      Defendant and Appellant.

       V.G. (Mother) appeals from the dispositional orders entered
after the juvenile court granted legal guardianship of her minor
daughters to a cousin in Riverside County. (Welf. & Inst. Code,1

         1   Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions
Code.
§ 366.26, subd. (c)(4)(C).) Mother contends the court erred when
it restricted visitation to four supervised hours per month and
gave the guardian discretion to permit unsupervised overnight
visits. We affirm.
             FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
        In December 2020 the Ventura County Human Services
Agency (HSA) filed two section 300 petitions alleging that Mother
had neglected her daughters, R.F. and G.F., and put them at risk
of sexual abuse. Mother then failed to cooperate with HSA’s
investigation and was dismissive about the attempted abuse.
HSA also alleged Mother put R.F. and G.F. at risk of emotional
harm and was unable to protect them due to ongoing domestic
violence.
        At the jurisdictional hearing Mother submitted to the
allegations in the petition. The juvenile court ordered R.F. and
G.F. to be placed with a maternal cousin in Riverside County. It
also ordered reunification services and supervised visitation for
Mother.
        Mother maintained regular contact with R.F. and G.F.
during the reunification period. She was allowed overnight
weekend visits in July and August 2021, and had a nearly two-
week-long visit with her daughters the following December.
Mother and her daughters all indicated that they enjoyed these
visits.
        After 18 months, HSA recommended terminating Mother’s
reunification services due to her inability to provide safe housing
for R.F. and G.F. According to the HSA social worker, Mother
was facing eviction because she did not pursue housing referrals
despite repeated opportunities to do so. In contrast, R.F. and
G.F. had a secure and stable home environment with their

                                 2
maternal cousin and were thriving academically and emotionally.
HSA thus recommended granting the cousin legal guardianship.
       The juvenile court agreed with HSA’s recommendation and
ordered a legal guardianship with the maternal cousin.
Regarding visitation, the court ordered a minimum of two hours
of supervised visits every other week for Mother. It gave the
guardian the discretion to liberalize Mother’s visitation to
unsupervised overnights and to grant additional visitation if it
was in R.F.’s and G.F.’s best interests.
                              DISCUSSION
       Mother contends the juvenile court erred when it restricted
her visits to four supervised hours per month and granted her
cousin the discretion to liberalize visits to unsupervised
overnights. We disagree.
       “After the termination of reunification services, [a parent’s]
interest in the care, custody[,] and companionship of the child are
no longer paramount.” (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295,
317.) “Rather, at this point ‘the focus shifts to the needs of the
child for permanency and stability.’ ” (Ibid.) If the juvenile court
orders legal guardianship after this shift occurs, section 366.26,
subdivision (c)(4)(C), requires it to “make an order for visitation
with the parents or guardians unless the court finds by a
preponderance of the evidence that the visitation would be
detrimental to the physical or emotional well-being of the child.”
When the court makes such an order, it must “ensure that at
least some visitation, at a minimum level determined by the
court itself, will in fact occur.” (In re S.H. (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th
310, 313.) It must also “provid[e] for flexibility in response to the
changing needs of the child and . . . dynamic family
circumstances.” (Id. at p. 317.)

                                  3
       We review a visitation order for abuse of discretion. (In re
S.H. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1542, 1557-1558.) A court abuses its
discretion when it “delegate[s] authority to the legal guardian to
decide whether visitation [will] occur.” (In re M.R. (2005) 132
Cal.App.4th 269, 274.)
       There was no abuse of discretion here. Having terminated
reunification services and ordered legal guardianship, the
juvenile court appropriately focused its attention on R.F. and
G.F.’s best interests, not Mother’s. R.F. and G.F. were satisfied
living with their cousin in Riverside County. They “appear[ed] to
be comfortable, happy, and to be doing well.”
       Mother, in comparison, had been unable to secure suitable
housing to accommodate visits with her daughters despite
repeated opportunities to do so. She still lived in the same home
from which her daughters were removed. She faced eviction.
And there was no indication that she could arrange for temporary
safe housing for unsupervised overnight visits with R.F. and
G.F.—either in Ventura County or by traveling to Riverside
County. Based on these circumstances, it was reasonable for the
court to limit visitation to supervised visits every two weeks.
       It was also reasonable for the juvenile court to permit the
guardian to liberalize Mother’s visitation. And in doing so, the
court did not impermissibly vest the guardian with discretion to
determine whether any visitation would occur, as Mother asserts.
In In re Rebecca S. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1310, 1313, the
juvenile court abdicated its duties by giving the legal guardian
sole discretion to arrange the frequency and duration of
visitation. The court here ordered a minimum of two hours of
visitation every two weeks, obviating any concern over “whether
visitation actually will occur.” (Id. at p. 1314.) It also ensured

                                4
that visitation would be flexible by allowing Mother and the
guardian to arrange for unsupervised overnight visits if it was in
the best interests of R.F. and G.F. That was not an abuse of
discretion.
                           DISPOSITION
      The juvenile court’s dispositional orders, entered December
15, 2022, are affirmed.
      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

                                    BALTODANO, J.

We concur:

             GILBERT, P. J.

             YEGAN, J.

                                5
                Manuel J. Covarrubias, Judge

              Superior Court County of Ventura

               ______________________________

      Jacques Alexander Love, under appointment by the Court
of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
      Tiffany N. North, County Counsel, Joseph J. Randazzo,
Assistant County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.