Court Opinion

ID: 9911747
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-20 19:02:25.033484+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:54:16.114922
License: Public Domain

Filed 12/20/23 In re S.O. 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                 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 S.O., a Person Coming Under
 the Juvenile Court Law.
                                                                 D082298
 SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH
 AND HUMAN SERVICES
 AGENCY,                                                         (Super. Ct. No. NJ15753)
           Plaintiff and Respondent,

           v.

 W.O.,

           Defendant and Appellant;

 D.O.,

           Respondent.

         APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Nadia J. Keilani, Judge. Affirmed.
         Neale B. Gold, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant Mother, W.O.
         Amy Z. Tobin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Respondent Father, D.O.
      Rich Pfeiffer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Respondent Minor, S.O.
      Claudia G. Silva, County Counsel, Lisa M. Maldonado, Chief Deputy
County Counsel, and Eliza Molk, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION1
      In June 2021, the San Diego Health and Human Services Agency
(Agency) filed a juvenile dependency case under Welfare and Institutions

Code2 section 300 on behalf of then five-month-old S.O. (Child) due to
domestic violence between his parents. During the dependency proceedings,
D.O. (Father) successfully completed reunification services, and W.O.
(Mother) moved to Iowa to live with her boyfriend. In May 2023, the juvenile
court terminated jurisdiction, placed the Child with Father, and awarded
Father sole legal and physical custody. In this appeal, Mother does not
challenge the juvenile court’s termination of jurisdiction or award of physical
custody to Father, but contends that the juvenile court erred by declining to
order joint legal custody.
      When the juvenile court terminates its jurisdiction over a dependent
child, section 362.4 authorizes it to make custody and visitation (or “exit”)
orders. (In re Chantal S. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 196, 203.) In issuing an exit
order, the juvenile court must consider the best interests of the child. (See,
e.g., In re Jennifer R. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 704, 712.) The family law

1     We resolve this appeal by memorandum opinion because it “raise[s] no
substantial issues of law or fact.” (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1(2).)

2     Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions
Code.
                                        2
presumption favoring joint custody does not apply to juvenile court custody
orders entered upon termination of jurisdiction. (Id. at pp. 711–713.)
      We review a juvenile court’s custody award pursuant to section 362.4
for abuse of discretion. (Bridget A. v. Superior Court (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th
285, 300.) “ ‘ “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.) The juvenile court has broad discretion to
make custody orders when it terminates jurisdiction in a dependency case.
(In re Nicholas H. (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 251, 265, fn. 4.)
      We conclude the court did not abuse its broad discretion when it
ordered full legal custody to Father. The decision is supported by the factual
history and does not exceed the bounds of reason. Even after receiving some
reunification services and regaining custody of the Child for a time, Mother
continued to make decisions that were not in the best interests of Child. She
re-exposed the Child to domestic violence, this time committed by her new
boyfriend. She then voluntarily relinquished physical custody of Child to
Father so that she could move to Iowa to be with her abusive boyfriend and
has not returned to visit with Child in person. Mother continues to reside in
Iowa, making joint decisionmaking and communication with Father more
difficult. Her lack of communication with the Agency and discontinuation of
services since her move to Iowa reasonably call into doubt her commitment to
remain actively involved in Child’s life—and further support a finding that
her participation in making important decisions about Child’s welfare would
not be in Child’s best interests.

                                         3
      Father has been making all the parenting decisions for Child and has
demonstrated a sustained willingness to make sacrifices to ensure Child’s
health and welfare. By all accounts, the Child is thriving in Father’s care.
The Agency, court appointed special advocate, and minor’s counsel support
the award of sole legal custody to Father. As the custodial parent who lives
in California with the Child, Father is in the best position to make his own
decisions regarding Child’s health, education, and welfare. Accordingly, the
juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by awarding sole legal custody to
Father.
                                DISPOSITION
      The order of May 26, 2023 is affirmed.

                                                               BUCHANAN, J.

WE CONCUR:

O’ROURKE, Acting P. J.

IRION, J.

                                       4