In re S.D. CA4/2

• Court: California Court of Appeal
• Decided: August 8, 2025
• Docket: E085242
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Filed 8/8/25 In re S.D. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 S.D., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, E085242

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super.Ct.No. INJ2000350)

v. OPINION

L.O.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Elizabeth Tucker,

Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed.

Pamela Rae Tripp for Defendant and Appellant.

Minh C. Tran, County Counsel, Teresa K.B. Beecham and Larisa R-McKenna,

Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

1 I.

INTRODUCTION

Defendant and appellant L.O. (PGM) is the paternal grandmother of 10-year-old

S.D., nine-year-old A.D., and seven-year-old J.D. PGM appeals from the juvenile court’s

order reducing her visitation as to all three children.1 PGM contends substantial evidence

did not support the court’s reduction of her visits as being in the children’s best interests.

We disagree and affirm the order.

II.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The family initially came to the attention of Riverside County Department of

Public Social Services (DPSS) in October 2020 when an immediate response referral was

received by Nevada child protective services. Then four-year-old A.D. was found

wandering a hotel unsupervised with a burn on the bottom of her foot and reported

Mother had burned her. All three children were taken into protective custody by Nevada

child protective services. The parents lived in Desert Hot Springs, California at the time.

The Nevada juvenile court found it contrary to the children’s welfare to remain in the

parents’ home, removed them from parental custody, and granted a 30-day visit with

PGM in California.

1 J.D. (Mother) and T.M. (Father) are not parties to this appeal.

2 The children were formally detained in November 2020 and a Welfare and

Institutions Code2 section 300 petition was filed in December 2020. On January 28,

2021, the juvenile court found true the allegations pursuant to section 300,

subdivisions (a), (b), (e), and (g). The court declared the children dependents of the

court, removed them from Mother’s custody, granted Mother reunification services, and

maintained them in Father’s care under family maintenance services contingent on

allowing the children to reside with PGM.

On February 4, 2021, an immediate response referral was received after law

enforcement found two separate baggies containing methamphetamine within Father’s

home, as well as uninhabitable living conditions. The children were in Father’s care at

the time and released to the maternal grandfather and Mother, who was not present in the

home at the time of the search. Father was arrested on charges related to child

endangerment and felon in possession of narcotics while armed. A section 387

supplemental petition was thereafter filed. Father’s family maintenance services were

revoked and the court ordered the paternal great-aunt to be assessed for placement of the

children.

On May 17, 2021, PGM filed a section 388 petition to change the court order.

PGM requested the court to place the children in her care. The court denied the request.

PGM filed another section 388 petition on June 18, 2021, requesting unsupervised and

2 All future statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise stated.

3 overnight visits with the children, stating that she had not previously allowed

unauthorized contact of the children with Father.

On June 29, 2021, after the court heard arguments from the parties, the court

ordered PGM to have reasonable supervised visitation. The court, however, denied

PGM’s request for de facto parent status, as well as unsupervised, overnight and weekend

visits with the children. On this same day, the court held a jurisdiction hearing regarding

the section 387 supplemental petition. The court removed the children from Father’s

custody and adjudged the children dependents of the court under section 387. The court

ordered reunification services for Father, vacated the previously scheduled review

hearings, and reset a review hearing for both parents.

On July 28, 2021, the juvenile court authorized family maintenance services for

Mother when deemed appropriate, as well as increased unsupervised visits for Mother.

Father’s in-person visits were suspended due to his incarceration and he was granted

supervised telephone visits with the children. The children were returned to Mother’s

care under family maintenance services on December 14, 2021.

On February 23, 2022, PGM filed another section 388 petition, requesting

unsupervised visitation because Mother had obtained custody and was not allowing visits

with PGM. The court set a hearing and ordered DPSS to attempt to solve the issue and

for the children’s counsel to “find out what the children want.” On May 3, 2022, the

court denied PGM’s request to have unsupervised visits with the children.

4 On June 14, 2022, the juvenile court terminated Father’s services, and granted sole

physical and legal custody of the children to Mother and terminated the dependency.

A detention hearing on a new section 300 petition filed May 21, 2023 was held on

June 1, 2023. The court removed the children from parental custody, ordered supervised

visitation to PGM a minimum of two times per month for one hour with authorization to

increase, and set a jurisdictional hearing.

On July 24, 2023, PGM filed a declaration requesting placement of the children,

noting Father wanted the children placed in her care, and attached a “Power of Attorney

for Care and Custody” and Temporary Guardianship Agreement.

At the jurisdiction hearing held on July 31, 2023, the court found true the

allegations in the amended petition filed July 18, 2023, ordered reunification services to

Mother, and set a review hearing.

On September 11, 2023, PGM filed another section 388 petition, requesting the

children be placed in her care. She claimed that the children were no longer in relative

placement with the paternal great-aunt and were in a foster home and that she had formed

a bond with the children. The court denied the motion on September 21, 2023, for failing

to state a change of circumstances or new evidence.

PGM also filed a De Facto Parent Request and a De Facto Parent Statement on

October 13, 2023. PGM also filed a Relative Information form on October 23, 2023.

The juvenile court denied the De Facto Parent Request on November 7, 2023.

5 On December 26, 2023, PGM filed another section 388 petition, stating DPSS had

removed the children from the paternal great-aunt and that she was in the process of

being approved as a relative resource family member. PGM wanted the visitation order

amended, noting “I have been in there life since they were born. I have been in there life

through this Dependency case too.” However, the attachment to the request stated PGM

was asking for the children to be placed in her home.

DPSS filed an addendum report on January 26, 2024, stating PGM had recently

caused a seriously detrimental environment in that she had endangered A.D.’s safety by

taking her to an unsafe home at 2:00 a.m. to retrieve a puppy and exposing her to gun

fire. Specifically, PGM stated that the homeowner came out of the home with a shot gun

and fired three shots in their direction. PGM took cover, left and called law enforcement.

PGM also brought the children into her care without notifying DPSS and with full

knowledge that she had been denied placement by DPSS, had frequent verbal arguments

and physical altercations in the presence of the children, and was evasive and refused to

allow DPSS contact with the children while coaching the children to make false sexual

abuse allegations. In addition, PGM had displayed erratic behavior and sent several texts

accusing DPSS as “treating her like a criminal and ‘drug addict.’ ” DPSS had asked

PGM to drug test due to concerns regarding PGM having to drug test in a prior

dependency, her refusal to drug test in this case, and the family court rejecting her

documents filed in support of providing legal guardianship to the children. Mother had

also expressed concerns regarding PGM’s ability to parent the children.

6 On January 31, 2024, the court denied PGM’s section 388 petition, however, the

court ordered visitation for PGM twice per month for two hours, supervised by DPSS or

designee.

On March 18, 2024, PGM filed another section 388 petition, requesting 12 visits

that were denied from September to February 2024, and four hours of unsupervised

visits. The court denied the section 388 petition on March 19, 2024.

On May 16, 2024, PGM filed another section 388 petition, requesting placement

of the children. She noted that she had been approved as a resource family and was in the

criminal exemption phase. The court denied the petition, explaining, “Request does not

state new evidence and is trying to avert RFA process. [PGM]’s request was previously

addressed in court.”

At the status review hearing held on July 16, 2024, the court terminated services to

Mother and set a section 366.26 selection and implementation hearing, along with a

section 366.3 review hearing.

DPSS’s report filed November 7, 2024, noted the children were originally placed

with the great paternal aunt, however on August 28, 2023, DPSS discovered that the great

paternal aunt’s water and electricity were shut off and she had taken the children to live

with PGM who was not cleared to have the children in her home. The children were

moved to a foster home on September 9, 2023. On October 16, 2024, the children stated

they loved staying with the caregiver and did not want to leave the placement. The

caregiver reported PGM would ask for visits at the last minute and would cancel minutes

7 before the visits. During one visit where PGM did not appear due to lack of gas money,

PGM spoke to A.D. by phone and caused A.D. to cry by blaming the caregiver for the

missed visit, and then guilted the caregiver into providing gas money and having the visit.

The caregiver also stated PGM would make promises to the children that they would be

going home with her, and spent most of her time with A.D. while ignoring the boys.

Although the social worker spoke with PGM to correct the behaviors, on October 16,

2024, the caregiver reported that PGM continued to make promises to the children that

they were going home with her and that the day after visits with PGM A.D. would be in a

bad mood, make statements about hurting her brothers and herself, and would get in

fights with her brothers. DPSS also noted that all three children showed concerning

behaviors and aggressiveness and requested for them to be evaluated for Wraparound

services. DPSS sought to reduce PGM’s visits with the children.

The Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) reported the caregiver states the

last visit with PGM was October 2024 because she had been telling A.D. she would be

taking her home soon, and that A.D.’s attitude and behaviors would become unbearable

after the visits as she did not listen to her, threw tantrums, and hit the other children. The

CASA also stated that the children appear to love their caregiver, sought her attention and

comfort, and appeared very comfortable in the caregiver’s home.

At the section 366.3 hearing held on November 13, 2024, the children’s counsel

submitted to reducing PGM’s visits and requested to suspend the Zoom visits. The

CASA representative was present, and the juvenile court noted that the representative

8 was in agreement that the “visits with grandma aren’t very healthy at least as to A[.D.].”

The court ordered visitation with PGM reduced to one time per month for one hour,

supervised by DPSS or designee, and suspension of Zoom visits, finding the visits not to

be in the best interests of the children. PGM timely appealed.

III.

DISCUSSION

PGM argues there was insufficient evidence to support the court’s order reducing

her visits with the children as it was not in the children’s best interests. We disagree.

Visitation by grandparents is governed by statute. (In re Marriage of Harris

(2004) 34 Cal.4th 210, 219.) A grandparent does not have an absolute right to visit a

dependent child, only the right to have the juvenile court consider whether such visitation

shall occur. (In re J.P. (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 1111, 1118 (J.P.); In re J.T. (2014) 228

Cal.App.4th 953, 962.) “If the court has ordered removal of the child from the physical

custody of the child’s parents pursuant to Section 361, the court shall consider whether

the family ties and best interest of the child will be served by granting visitation rights to

the child’s grandparents.” (§ 361.2, subd. (i); see Cal. Rules of Court,

rule 5.695(a)(7)(C); see also § 16507, subd. (a) [Family reunification services provided

by social services agency “shall include a plan for visitation of the child by his or her

grandparents, where the visitation is in the best interests of the child and will serve to

maintain and strengthen the family relationships of the child.”].)

9 The juvenile court has authority to make “any and all reasonable orders” to

promote the child’s best interest (§ 362, subd. (a)), including fashioning appropriate

visitation orders. (In re Kayla W. (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 409, 418; In re Jasmin C.

(2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 177, 180.) Whether, and under what conditions, grandparental

visitation occurs is within the juvenile court’s discretion. When determining whether to

authorize visits by grandparents, the court’s primary criteria is whether the best interest of

the child will be served by such visits. (§ 361.2, subd. (i); In re J.P., supra, 37

Cal.App.5th at p. 1118 [Juvenile court may order visits with grandparents “if it is

reasonably related to [the child’s] care and is in his [or her] best interest.”].) The juvenile

court can suspend or deny visitation with any relative whose conduct is detrimental to the

child’s emotional and/or physical well-being. (In re F.P. (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 966, 973

(F.P.); In re T.M. (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 1214, 1219-1220; In re Valerie A. (2007) 152

Cal.App.4th 987, 1005; see § 362.1, subd. (a)(1)(B) [“No visitation order shall jeopardize

the safety of the child.”].)

The juvenile court’s visitation orders are reviewed for abuse of discretion. (In re

J.P., supra, 37 Cal.App.5th at p. 1119; In re J.N. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 450, 459.)

“The abuse of discretion standard warrants that we apply a very high degree of deference

to the decision of the juvenile court.” (J.N., at p. 459.) We determine whether the order

exceeded the bounds of reason and, in so doing, we cannot substitute our judgment for

that of the juvenile court. (In re Caden C. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 614, 641; In re Stephanie M.

(1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318-319.)

10 A juvenile court’s findings that visitation would be detrimental to the child are

reviewed for substantial evidence. (In re R.M. (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 119; In re F.P.,

supra, 61 Cal.App.5th at p. 973.) “Substantial evidence is evidence that is ‘of ponderable

legal significance,’ ‘reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value,’ and ‘ “substantial”

proof of the essentials which the law requires in a particular case.’ ” (Conservatorship of

O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 1006.) “Our role in conducting a review for sufficiency of the

evidence is limited. We must review the entire record in the light most favorable to the

juvenile court’s order and draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence that support

it. We may not resolve conflicts in the evidence, reweigh the evidence, or second guess

the juvenile court’s express or implied determinations regarding the credibility of

witnesses.” (In re R.M., supra, 111 Cal.App.5th 119; accord In re N.S. (2020) 55

Cal.App.5th 816, 847; In re K.B. (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 972, 979.)

Here, the record contains substantial evidence to support the juvenile court’s

finding of detriment. PGM had an extensive history of disrupting the children’s lives

through her visitation. PGM had recently caused a seriously detrimental environment in

that she had endangered A.D.’s safety by taking her to an unsafe home at 2:00 a.m. to

retrieve a puppy and exposing her to gun fire. PGM also brought the children into her

care without notifying DPSS and with full knowledge that she had been denied

placement. PGM also had frequent verbal arguments and physical altercations in the

presence of the children, was evasive and refused to allow DPSS contact with the

children while coaching the children to make false sexual abuse allegations, and refused

11 to drug test despite DPSS’s concerns. In addition, PGM had displayed erratic behavior

and sent several texts accusing DPSS as “treating her like a criminal and ‘drug addict.’ ”

DPSS also had the family court reject her documents filed in support of providing legal

guardianship to the children and Mother had expressed concerns regarding PGM’s ability

to parent the children.

PGM had also allowed the paternal great-aunt to move in with her and the children

after the aunt’s water and electricity were shut off, despite knowing she was not cleared

to have the children in her home. The caregiver reported PGM would ask for visits at the

last minute and would cancel minutes before the visits, and that during one visit where

PGM did not appear due to lack of gas money, PGM spoke to A.D. by phone and caused

A.D. to cry by blaming the caregiver for the missed visit. The caregiver also stated PGM

would make promises to the children that they would be going home with her, and spent

most of her time with A.D. while ignoring the boys. PGM continued to have

inappropriate behaviors with the children, despite DPSS’s attempts to correct the

behaviors. Moreover, day after visits with PGM A.D. would be in a bad mood, make

statements about hurting her brothers and herself, and would get in fights with her

brothers. The CASA representative corroborated the caregiver’s statements, and also

noted the children appeared to love their caregiver, sought her attention and comfort, and

appeared very comfortable in the caregiver’s home. The children also reported to DPSS

that they loved staying with the caregiver and did not want to leave the placement.

Although not dispositive, a child’s own wishes and statements as reflected in the social

12 worker’s reports are strong evidence the juvenile court may consider when deciding

whether relative visits would be detrimental to the child’s well-being. (Cf. In re I.E.

(2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 683, 694 [child’s wishes, though not determinative, “may be

highly relevant evidence when determining whether termination of parental rights will be

detrimental to the child”].)

Given the nature of PGM’s disruptive behaviors with the children and the

children’s behavior after visits with PGM, it was reasonable for the juvenile court to

conclude PGM’s visits caused the children’s dysregulated and aggressive behavior and

was detrimental for the children. Nevertheless, the juvenile court did not deny PGM

visitation altogether, but allowed PGM to have visitation once a month for one hour in a

supervised setting, similar to the visitation order made for Mother.

From the above evidence, the juvenile court could reasonably conclude PGM’s

visits with the children was detrimental and in their best interest to reduce visits with

PGM. Considering the substantial evidence that visits with PGM were detrimental to the

children’s physical or emotional well-being, we find the juvenile court’s order that

PGM’s visits be reduced was not an abuse of discretion.

13 IV.

DISPOSITION

The juvenile court’s November 13, 2024, visitation order as to PGM is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS CODRINGTON Acting P. J. We concur:

FIELDS J.

RAPHAEL J.