Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
In March 2022, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 petition alleging that D.Z. (mother) had a history of substance abuse, including methamphetamine, and that the parents engaged in violent altercations, rendering her unable to care for her infant son E.P., Jr. The juvenile court detained the minor, sustained the petition in May 2022, and at the July 2022 disposition hearing released him to mother under DCFS supervision with a case plan requiring drug treatment and testing.
In October 2022, mother was found passed out after inhaling computer duster while carrying the minor, prompting a section 387 supplemental petition. The court sustained it in January 2023, removed the minor, and ordered monitored visits. After further treatment and negative tests, the court allowed unmonitored and overnight visits in August 2023 and placed the minor back with mother in October 2023. In July 2024, however, mother was found in a bathroom with an aerosol can while her four-year-old daughter wandered the facility. A second supplemental petition followed, and in October 2024 the court removed the minor and set a section 366.26 permanent plan hearing.
At the contested section 366.26 hearings on June 11 and September 30, 2025, the juvenile court found that terminating parental rights would be detrimental and that appointing the caretakers as legal guardians was in the minor's best interests. At the continued September hearing, mother requested unmonitored visits; the minor's counsel strongly opposed, citing her pattern of progress followed by relapse, and DCFS objected because mother had reported no progress since June. The court ordered visits to remain monitored, with a mutually agreed monitor or one paid for by the parents. Mother timely appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal affirmed, applying the abuse-of-discretion standard governing juvenile visitation orders, which will not be disturbed unless the juvenile court exceeded the bounds of reason or made an arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd determination. The court rejected mother's argument that monitoring had to be found 'reasonably necessary,' noting she cited no authority for that requirement and that section 366.26, subdivision (h)(1) instead directs the court to act in the child's best interests.
Applying that standard, the court found no abuse of discretion. Mother had abused drugs for more than ten years, had been sober at least twice during the case only to relapse, and offered no evidence of progress between the June and September 2025 hearings. The minor, through counsel, strongly opposed unmonitored visits, and the child's views are a permissible, potentially dominant factor. The court also rejected the distinction between relapses during custody versus visits: both custody and unmonitored visits leave mother alone with the child.
Finally, the court addressed mother's claim that a shortage of DCFS monitors had reduced her visitation. The order allowed a mutually agreed or parent-paid monitor, mother had not objected below or shown the terms would limit her visits, and the juvenile court retains jurisdiction under section 366.4 to modify the order if problems arise. The order was affirmed.
Key Takeaways
- A juvenile court's visitation order in a section 366.26 permanent plan proceeding is reviewed for abuse of discretion and will be reversed only if it is arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd.
- There is no requirement that a juvenile court find monitored visitation 'reasonably necessary'; the governing standard is the best interests of the child under section 366.26, subdivision (h)(1).
- A parent's extended history of substance abuse combined with repeated relapses during the dependency case can justify monitored visitation even after more than a year of sobriety.
- The child's own opposition to unmonitored visits, expressed through counsel, is a legitimate factor the juvenile court may weigh in setting visitation conditions.
- A parent who fails to object to the terms of a monitoring arrangement in the juvenile court generally cannot challenge those terms for the first time on appeal, and the juvenile court retains jurisdiction to modify visitation after a guardianship is established.
Why It Matters
This unpublished decision illustrates how California appellate courts apply the deferential abuse-of-discretion standard to visitation orders in a section 366.26 permanent plan establishing legal guardianship. It confirms that recent sobriety of over a year does not compel unmonitored visitation when weighed against a decade-long history of substance abuse and repeated relapses during the dependency case.
The opinion also underscores that the child's opposition, conveyed through counsel, can carry significant weight, and that objections to the mechanics of a monitoring arrangement must be raised in the juvenile court to be preserved. Reliance on section 366.4 highlights that guardianship does not end the juvenile court's authority to adjust visitation if circumstances change.