Filed 2/6/26 In re J.N. CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO
In re J.N. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, E086244
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super.Ct.Nos. J303748 & J303749 & J303750) v. OPINION J.R.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Steven A. Mapes,
Judge. Affirmed.
Jacob I. Olson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Tom Bunton, County Counsel, Kristina M. Robb, Deputy County Counsel for
Plaintiff and Respondent.
1 J.R. (Mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating dependency
proceedings involving three of her children and issuing exit orders to family court that
vested custody of the children with their father, J.N. (Father), and denied Mother
visitation pending filing of the matter in family court. The children, J.T. (born in June
2008), Ja.N. (born in July 2012) and Jv.N. (born in Dec. 2011; hereinafter Minors) are
now ages 17, 13, and 12. Mother challenges only the court’s denial of visitation. As we
explain post, we affirm the juvenile court’s order.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Minors came to the attention of child welfare authorities in February 2025 when
law enforcement arrested Mother at a restaurant for driving under the influence of
methamphetamine and misdemeanor child endangerment. Minors had contacted Father
to report that Mother had been acting “so strange” while driving them around, including
claiming she “did not recognize some of her children.” Minors did not see Mother
“smoking drugs” on that occasion, but they had in the past, according to law
enforcement’s report on the matter to San Bernardino County Children and Family
Services (CFS).
A social worker interviewed Minors. The eldest, J.T. reported that she and her
siblings lived with Father and did not see Mother often, perhaps two or three days a
month. J.T. did not feel safe with Mother. In Mother’s care, her discipline practices
included taking J.T.’s phone, but also turning off the power in the home. Mother also
sometimes turned off the power and sat in her car. Mother drank two beers before the
driving incident, when they went to pick up Jv.N. Mother said she did not recognize
2 Jv.N., though her daughter “was right in front of her.” Other strange behavior included
trying to force J.T. to take a DNA test, telling her she was not Mother’s child. Mother’s
relationship with her boyfriend, J.H. (Boyfriend) was marred by domestic violence, and
he did not like Minors. J.T. reported she was “ ‘sometimes scared of her mother.’ ” For
J.T. to feel safe at Mother’s home, Mother would “need to get help and not have
[Boyfriend] there anymore.”
Ja.N. also did not feel safe with Mother, including outside Mother’s home. The
driving incident lasted for hours, during which Mother told them they were going to the
hospital for DNA tests to prove they were her children. Mother thought Boyfriend had
“traded the kids in” for different ones. Ja.N. did not “recognize [Mother] as [his]
mother.” She was “acting differently.” At home, Mother drank beer about half of the
time Ja.N. visited. His sister told him Mother had been drinking the day of the driving
incident. During the social worker’s interview, Ja.N.’s face went from “fine” to “a look
of devastation.” He told the social worker that he had received a text from Father
indicating Mother had “gotten custody back,” apparently in ongoing proceedings, and
Ja.N. was “fearful of what would happen.”
The social worker’s interview with Jv.N. had to be paused several times because
the child “often” became physically upset. She trembled and shook, including to the
point of hyperventilating when describing being driven around by Mother “for hours.”
Mother drove “at really fast speeds and almost got into car accidents.” Mother was
acting “weird,” and Jv.N. was “really scared.” She also did not feel safe at Mother’s
home. Mother yelled a lot at Minors, Boyfriend was often there, and Jv.N. described an
3 incident in which Boyfriend grabbed Mother by the hair and beat her head into a wall.
Asked how she would feel about returning to Mother’s care, Jv.N. began crying. She
excused her tears because she was: “ ‘Just a little scared of what she might do to me, I
just would not want to go back with her.’ ”
Minors’ adult sister, P.T., expressed concern that her siblings were not safe in
Mother’s care. She described Mother as “paranoid 24/7.” Mother would talk to “people
in the vents” in her home; she believed there were cameras in the vents; that her cell
phone had been hacked; and that Boyfriend would, referring to P.T. in an ambiguous
statement, “put us up for men.” Mother’s paranoia became exacerbated at night. Mother
had a recent history of homelessness. Mother admitted to drug use, and P.T. believed
Mother needed alcohol treatment as well.
Father told the social worker that Mother had been calling him nonstop, “saying
weird stuff.” After a 10-year relationship, they had separated in 2019. He was the
biological father of Minors Ja.N. and Jv.N., and had cared for J.T. since she was five
months old, viewing her as his own. During the driving incident, Father tracked Jv.N.’s
phone and could see them driving in circles for hours. He followed them, called Mother,
and urged her to stop to let Minors use the bathroom and get food. When she did, he
called 911. Mother admitted she was “buzzed” but claimed a neighbor was driving. It
was unusual for her to pick Minors up, as Father had them in his care 90 percent of the
time.
Mother appeared unannounced at CFS’s offices a week after the driving incident.
She was shaking in the reception area when she asked for a pen, which she had such a
4 “hard time giving . . . back” that concerns arose “something might be wrong,” including
that she was “going through withdrawals.” Mother excused herself outside for 15 to 20
minutes and returned much calmer, which did not mitigate the concerns. In speaking to
the social worker, Mother would stare, not respond at times, and questions had to be
repeated or rephrased. Mother gave a convoluted account of the driving incident. She
summarized that it ended at the “burger place” when “the cops arrived” and “tried to get
her for a DUI and child endangerment,” but, “at the station . . . they drop[ped] the
charges.” Mother stated she had never driven a vehicle under the influence of drugs or
alcohol with her children in the car. She denied using alcohol or drugs at all, nor did she
smoke cigarettes or vape.
A second incident prompted CFS to seek and obtain immediate protective custody
warrants for Minors. Mother attempted to pick Minors J.T. and Jv.N. up from school, but
law enforcement responded because Minors refused to go home with her. They reported
“being fearful of [Mother] and her actions.” All three minors “stated that they are afraid
to go home with [her] due to [Mother] not acting normal anymore and they feel u[n]safe.”
Minors reported fear of both Mother and Boyfriend. Among their fears, Minors worried
that Mother “will retaliate against them for talking to CFS and law enforcement.” Ja.N.
reported also that Mother had “slapped him in the face, which was totally out of
character.” Minors stated “they love their mother, but are scared to go stay with [Mother]
until she gets help, because if she does not believe they are her children they are afraid of
what she may do to them.”
5 Minors also disclosed to the responding deputy that Mother was telling them “they
were going to move to Mexico to live with a maternal aunt and that [Boyfriend] was
talking about selling the[m].” Mother asserted to the social worker who had arrived at
the scene that Boyfriend lived out of state, suggesting Minors had nothing to fear from
him. She would not, however, provide his contact information. The social worker
noticed two large circular bruises on Mother’s upper thigh. Mother had previously
denied domestic violence with Boyfriend, stating they “talk to avoid disagreements.”
CFS filed petitions seeking the juvenile court’s dependency protection. The
grounds included as to Minors Ja.N. and Jv.N. failure to protect them from a serious risk
of harm (§ 300, subd. (b)(1)) and abuse of a sibling (id., subd. (j)). J.T.’s petition added
in relevant part a lack of any provision for her support by her birth father (id., subd. (g)).1
At the detention hearing, the juvenile court ordered predisposition reunification services
for Mother and maintained custody of Minors with Father, to whom Minors had been
released.
CFS’s report for the pending jurisdiction and disposition hearing summarized its
further investigation. Father said he and Mother separated in 2020, and though she
sought and obtained primary custody and child support at that time, Minors lived
primarily with him. Mother lost her low-income housing and had been, according to
Father, “ ‘a maybe once a month type of mom.’ ” Father gained full, but temporary
emergency custody of Minors a in family court after the driving incident, but that court
1 Initial allegations of sexual abuse of J.T. by her birth father appear to have been subsequently dismissed upon CFS’s recommendation.
6 subsequently allowed reinstatement of the prior formal custody arrangement that allotted
Father only weekends. Meanwhile, Mother ignored the juvenile court’s intervening
custody order in the dependency proceedings by initiating unauthorized contact with
Minors. This included following Jv.N. during a field trip, requiring a teacher to escort the
child back to school. With a knife in hand, Mother also banged on the windows at the
paternal grandmother’s home, demanding Minors. Father was concerned about Mother’s
statements that she would take Minors to Mexico.
J.T. corroborated her sister’s account that Boyfriend dragged Mother by the hair.
Food was scarce at Mother’s home, where Minors ate mostly granola bars. Mother
smoked, drank beer, and sometimes vaped in the car with Minors present, contrary to
what Mother told CFS. J.T. said she would want to visit Mother when she’s “better” and
“more secure,” but she did not feel safe in Mother’s home. Nor did she trust Mother
elsewhere, given that Mother often drove while intoxicated. Mother complained in texts
to J.T. about “ ‘children brainwashed by the narc’ ” and sent her an “ ‘underground
movement about CPS’ ” video. Mother’s behaviors made J.T. feel unsafe.
Ja.N. also saw Boyfriend pull Mother’s hair and slam her head. Ja.N. recounted
the driving incident, including that Mother mentioned Mexico among other places. She
would not let them out of the car for hours, even to use a restroom. Ja.N. was scared. He
had seen Mother drink beer before and believed she drove while drinking. He wished
“they could all live together if his mom didn’t act the way she does.” He believed he
would want to visit Mother “when she’s not ‘like that.’ ”
7 Jv.N. recounted what she had said previously. She suspected Mother was using
drugs or alcohol; she had heard Mother’s and Boyfriend’s arguments on the phone, and
she did not like him because of his abuse, including when her sister tried to intervene and
he (Boyfriend) pushed her sister.
Mother failed to show for her drug tests and put off the social worker’s inquiries.
Mother claimed she would call or text the worker back, but did not do so. Mother’s
criminal history included two separate alcohol DUI charges preceding her most recent
arrest, as well as driving on a suspended license and multiple petty theft and obstruction
charges.
The juvenile court continued the March 2025 jurisdiction and disposition hearing
for Mother to be interviewed by the social worker, to no avail. The court ordered Mother
to drug test that day. Mother complained about the test site’s observation policy. She
completed a negative test at a different location after the social worker learned Mother
had been barred from the scheduled site. Mother thwarted attempts to interview her by
demanding to record the social worker on multiple occasions and then escalating to
yelling at the worker, resulting in termination of the call. Minors did not want to visit
with Mother, nor does the record indicate Mother ever attempted approved visitation with
them.
The court continued the late April 2025 jurisdiction and disposition hearing again
to allow Mother to speak to the social worker. The court instructed Mother to call the
worker after the hearing to set up an interview, which never happened. CFS’s interim
report summarized that the social worker reached out to Mother to schedule an
8 appointment in May 2025. Mother agreed to a date, but when the worker followed up to
confirm the next day, Mother said she was out of town on business. Mother missed her
drug tests in April and May.
CFS’s further interim report included more details on Mother tracking Jv.N. on her
field trip. Mother and Boyfriend were both at the field trip site, disheveled and seeming
not to have slept. Minor had to warn Mother away and feared she would be kidnapped.
A teacher stood “between [Jv.N.] and [Mother] and [Boyfriend] who insisted on holding
[Minor]. Father had to change Minors’ cell phone numbers to prevent Mother from
contacting them outside of juvenile court supervision. CFS worried that Mother “clearly
disregards the court orders and continues to scare [Minors] with her actions, placing them
at continued risk.” At an ensuing scheduling hearing with the attorneys, the court barred
visitation with Mother until the next hearing.
The court held the jurisdiction and disposition hearing on June 2, 2025. CFS
sought termination of the dependency with exit orders to family court to include
supervised visitation for Mother. Minors’ counsel opposed visitation.
Mother testified. She recounted her version of the driving incident, she denied not
recognizing Minors, denied drinking alcohol, denied illicit substance use, explained her
missed tests because her birthdate was incorrect on testing paperwork, denied any mental
health issues, insisted that DNA testing of Minors was simply for tracing ancestry, and
denied knowing Jv.N. would be at the field trip park the day Mother and Boyfriend also
appeared there. Mother denied a current relationship with Boyfriend or that he had ever
9 hit or pushed her. But she admitted he drove her to court that day. Mother saw no reason
for visitation with her children to be monitored.
The court found no credibility in Mother’s testimony and that visits with Mother
would be detrimental to Minors. The court amended the dependency petition allegations
to reference Mother’s erratic and bizarre, unregulated and unexplained behavior, but
specified there had been no medical mental health diagnosis as yet. The court found
dependency was nevertheless necessary, sustaining jurisdiction under section 300,
subdivision (b), for Minors Ja.N. and Jv.N., and under subdivisions (b) and (g) for J.T.
The court removed custody from Mother and found Father to be the presumed father of
Minors and that he was able and willing to assume custody.
The juvenile court then dismissed the dependency with orders granting Father sole
legal custody and primary physical custody of Minors. The court’s exit orders to family
court jurisdiction specified no visitation for Mother pending filing of the matter in family
court within 15 days of the juvenile court’s order. The juvenile court’s no-visitation order
included a handwritten notation and the following check marked reasons for the order:
Mother had “not completed” (1) any drug abuse treatment program with random testing,
(2) a domestic violence treatment program for victims, (3) anger management training,
(4) parenting classes, (5) individual counseling, or (6) mental health services, including
evaluation or medication compliance. The court’s handwritten note specified as a further
basis for its order: Mother’s “complete lack of insight [and] self awareness” and that she
“violates [the] children’s personal[,] emotional[, and] safety boundaries.”
10 DISCUSSION
Mother contends the juvenile court erred in failing to require visitation for her in
its exit orders. To recite the evidence above is to show there is no merit whatsoever to
Mother’s argument.
Mother relies on the principle that visitation is ordinarily an essential component
of reunification services. She invokes Welfare and Institutions Code section 362.1,
subdivision (a)(1)(A), which provides that when the juvenile court issues a dispositional
order “placing a child in foster care, and ordering reunification services,” the court
generally must provide for parental visitation “as frequent[ly] as possible, consistent with
the well-being of the child” (ibid.), without “jeopardiz[ing] the safety of the child” (id.,
subd. (a)(1)(B)).2 That is not the posture of this case, however. Foster care and
reunification supervised by the juvenile court were not at issue.
Rather, as CFS points out, section 361.2 governs when there is a previously
noncustodial parent able and willing to assume custody. Instead of sending a dependent
child to foster care, the court “shall” place him or her with the parent willing to assume
custody, unless it would be detrimental to the child. (§ 361.2, subd. (a).) In making these
decisions in the child’s best interests, the juvenile court may adjust legal and physical
custody, terminate its dependency jurisdiction, and “may also provide reasonable
visitation by the noncustodial parent.” (Id., subd. (b)(1), italics added; see, e.g. In re
2 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
11 Austin P. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 1124, 1131.) Mother cites no authority that visitation is
required in these circumstances.
To the contrary, as CFS also correctly explains, section 362.4 sets forth the
governing framework when the juvenile court terminates jurisdiction and issues exit
orders for custody and other matters to be monitored and adjudicated in the family court.
(See In re J.M. (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 95, 112-113.) Thus, as J.M. highlighted:
“Section 362.4 governs the termination of juvenile court jurisdiction and related orders.
The statute authorizes a juvenile court to make ‘exit orders’ regarding custody and
visitation upon terminating dependency jurisdiction over a child. (See § 362.4, subd. (a);
In re Chantal S. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 196, 203 . . .; In re Kenneth S., Jr. (2008) 169
Cal.App.4th 1353, 1358[.]) These exit orders remain in effect until modified or
terminated by a subsequent order of the superior court. (§ 362.4, subd. (b); see also Cal.
Rules of Court, rule 5.700.)” (J.M., at p. 112.)
J.M. continued: “ ‘[I]n making exit orders, the juvenile court must look at the best
interests of the child.’ [Citations.] The court must be guided by the totality of the
circumstances and issue orders that are in the child’s best interests. [Citations.] Because
juvenile dependency proceedings arise when children are subject to or at risk of abuse or
neglect, ‘[t]he presumption of parental fitness that underlies custody law in the family
court just does not apply. . . . Rather the juvenile court, which has been intimately
involved in the protection of the child, is best situated to make custody determinations
based on the best interests of the child without any preferences or presumptions.’ ” (J.M.,
supra, 89 Cal.App.5th at p. 112.)
12 We review the juvenile court’s exit orders under the deferential abuse of discretion
standard. (J.M., supra, 89 Cal.App.5th at p. 113.) Under that standard, we will not
disturb the juvenile court’s decision “ ‘ “unless the trial court has exceeded the limits of
legal discretion by making an arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd determination.” ’ ”
(In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318.) As the high court “warned” practitioners
long ago: “ ‘The appropriate test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial court
exceeded the bounds of reason.’ ” (Id. at pp. 318-319.)
The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion. Mother’s arguments shade the
record in her favor, contrary to the standard of review. We review the record in the light
most favorable to the juvenile court’s determinations. (See, e.g., In re. I.J. (2013)
56 Cal.4th 766, 773.)
Mother’s statements also approach misstatement of the record, as when counsel on
her behalf asserts: “The children wished to have visits with Mother, even expressing the
desire to return to her care as her behavior improved.” (Italics added.) Mother’s
behavior never improved, and it misstates the record to imply it did. Counsel on
Mother’s behalf also argues: “There is no evidence that the children feared Mother or felt
unsafe in her presence during monitored or supervised visits.” (Italics added.) The
record is devoid of evidence that Mother visited with Minors, monitored or unmonitored,
except when she approached Jv.N. on her field trip outside of court-sanctioned visitation,
and the child feared she would be kidnapped. Mother also routinely flouted court
supervision by contacting Minors on their cell phones, until the numbers were changed.
Minors were terrified of Mother. The juvenile court was not required to order an
13 experiment in finally having Mother abide by monitored visitation in the interlude
between juvenile court and family court jurisdiction.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court’s challenged exit orders are affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MILLER J.
We concur:
McKINSTER Acting P. J.
CODRINGTON J.