Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
M.M. was born in 2022 amid an ongoing custody dispute between Sonia M. and Michael M. A family court initially awarded the parents joint legal and physical custody, but their conflict continued. The opinion recounts that Mother made multiple unfounded allegations of neglect and abuse against Father. In 2024, the Riverside County Department of Public Social Services filed a dependency petition after a referral alleging general neglect and physical abuse. That earlier case ended in September 2025, when the court terminated jurisdiction, restored joint custody, and ordered the parents to continue a co-parenting program.
A new referral followed in October 2025 after Mother sought a restraining order and reported sexualized behavior and statements by M.M. concerning Father. During the investigation, M.M. made statements indicating that Father had touched her, while Father accused Mother and maternal relatives of coaching the child. Mother also refused to return M.M. under the existing custody arrangement. Both parents sought emergency custody, and Father received temporary sole custody pending a later hearing. DPSS then filed another dependency petition, and the juvenile court detained M.M. from both parents and ordered supervised visits twice each week.
The caption designates both DPSS as Plaintiff and Appellant and Sonia M. as Defendant and Appellant. The opinion’s discussion addresses Mother’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the detriment finding. Reports and hearing testimony presented sharply conflicting accounts: Mother’s supervised visits were described as appropriate and affectionate, but M.M.’s demeanor changed abruptly during a November 2025 visit after Mother briefly took her to a restroom. A special incident report later stated that M.M. said Mother had coached her to lie. The juvenile court found that sexual touching by Father had not been established, found Mother not credible, adjudged M.M. a dependent, ordered family maintenance services for Father, denied reunification services for Mother, and suspended Mother’s visitation for three months. The court also ordered therapy for M.M. and said therapeutic visitation with Mother could begin in June 2026.
The Court’s Holding
Although the caption lists both DPSS and Mother as appellants, the opinion’s discussion addresses Mother’s argument that there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s finding that visitation with her would be detrimental to M.M. The Court of Appeal applied substantial evidence review, viewing the record in favor of the prevailing party and drawing legitimate and reasonable inferences to uphold the juvenile court’s determination. It rejected Mother’s arguments that she had not coached M.M. and that, even if coaching occurred, their interactions were not detrimental.
The appellate court identified ample evidence supporting the coaching finding. M.M. initially ran excitedly to Father at the November visit, but cried and accused him after her brief restroom contact with Mother. She then quickly became affectionate again when asked whether she wanted to visit Father. The special incident report supplied additional support because M.M. said Mother had told her to lie and that she did not want to lie. The court also relied on Mother’s history of unfounded allegations, the psychological evaluation, her continued denial of coaching, and evidence that the conduct occurred even during monitored visitation.
From that evidence, the juvenile court could reasonably infer that continued visitation would cause emotional harm and threaten M.M.’s wellbeing. The Court of Appeal therefore concluded that substantial evidence supported the detriment finding and affirmed the dispositional findings and orders. It did not announce a categorical rule that coaching automatically requires suspension; its decision rested on the combined evidence and the deference owed to the juvenile court’s factual findings.
Key Takeaways
- A juvenile court’s visitation-detriment finding is reviewed for substantial evidence, with reasonable inferences drawn in favor of the determination.
- The abrupt change in M.M.’s behavior after brief contact with Mother supported the finding that coaching occurred during supervised visitation.
- M.M.’s statement that Mother had told her to lie provided additional evidence beyond the disputed observations at the visit.
- Mother’s history of unfounded allegations and continued denial of coaching supported an inference that the harmful behavior would continue.
- The appellate court affirmed the dispositional findings and orders without treating appropriate and affectionate visits as conclusive evidence against detriment.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how a dependency court may evaluate visitation risk through the entire evidentiary record rather than relying solely on whether a parent appears attentive or affectionate during supervised visits. Evidence of coaching, repeated unfounded accusations, sudden behavioral changes, and a parent’s lack of insight can collectively support a temporary suspension when the juvenile court connects that conduct to emotional harm.
The opinion also demonstrates the limited role of substantial evidence review in this setting. The appellate court did not independently resolve every conflicting allegation between the parents; it asked whether the record adequately supported the juvenile court’s findings and reasonable inferences. The ruling is unpublished and subject to California’s restrictions on citing or relying on unpublished opinions.