Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Q.X. (Mother) appealed Riverside County juvenile court orders terminating dependency jurisdiction over her children, M.C. and E.C., granting sole legal and physical custody to their father, R.C., and ordering her monitored visitation. The case began with a July 21, 2024 neglect referral concerning M.C. In October 2024, DPSS filed out-of-custody petitions recommending that both children remain in the parents' care with family maintenance services. The following month, DPSS filed an amended petition recommending removal of M.C. from both parents. On November 22, 2024, the court detained M.C.; at the February 5, 2025 hearing it sustained the amended allegations, declared the children dependents, and removed M.C.
After M.C. was placed with Father on May 13, 2025, DPSS filed a section 387 supplemental petition as to E.C., alleging that Mother's unresolved mental-health issues and conduct endangered his emotional well-being. The court detained E.C. from Mother on June 4, 2025, and sustained the petition on July 25, 2025. At the August 7, 2025 six-month review, it returned M.C. to Father, ordered reunification services for Mother for both children though both were then in Father's custody, and reduced her visits to two one-hour visits per week.
At the February 4, 2026 twelve-month review, Mother sought return of both children and argued that DPSS failed to provide reasonable services by not ensuring meaningful visitation. The court found the conditions supporting jurisdiction no longer existed and terminated jurisdiction upon filing an exit order granting Father sole custody and Mother monitored visitation one time per week for a two-hour visit as a minimum, supervised by a paid professional monitor at her expense, with the minors' wishes taken into consideration. The March 2, 2026 final judgment repeated those terms, but the February 4 minute orders conflicted by making visitation the children's discretion.
The Court’s Holding
The court rejected the reasonable-services challenge on a threshold statutory ground. Mother was not entitled to reunification services for E.C. because he remained in Father's custody, and no longer entitled to them for M.C. once M.C. was returned to Father. At a section 364 family-maintenance review, the issue is whether conditions justifying jurisdiction remain or will arise if supervision ends, not whether a noncustodial parent made sufficient reunification progress; because no party met that standard, termination was required. Section 362 permits discretionary enhancement services for a noncustodial parent, but those are not designed to reunify.
The court also found no improper delegation of the decision whether visitation would occur. A juvenile court has the sole power to grant or deny visitation but may delegate the time, place, and manner of visits. The exit order expressly required a weekly two-hour minimum visit, so considering the children's wishes concerned that fixed schedule, not authority to eliminate visitation. The court distinguished In re S.H., where the order lacked frequency and duration and allowed refused visits to be abandoned.
Because the minute orders conflicted with the oral pronouncement and final judgment, and the oral pronouncement controls, the appellate court presumed the language was clerical error. It affirmed the judgment and directed the juvenile court to correct the February 4, 2026 minute orders nunc pro tunc by striking the children's-discretion language and substituting the minors'-wishes language. Future enforcement or modification belongs in family law court upon a parent's specific request.
Key Takeaways
- Once a child is safely placed with one parent, the noncustodial parent is not entitled to reunification services; a section 364 review asks only whether the conditions justifying jurisdiction persist or will return without supervision.
- Termination is the default at a family-maintenance review absent a preponderance showing that the conditions justifying jurisdiction remain or will exist.
- An exit order may consider children's wishes about the time, place, and manner of visits without delegating the decision whether visitation will occur; a fixed weekly two-hour minimum schedule did not do so.
- The oral pronouncement and final judgment controlled over conflicting minute-order language, treated as clerical error and corrected nunc pro tunc.
- Future disputes over enforcement or modification of the visitation order must be raised in family law court through a specific request by the dissatisfied parent.
Why It Matters
The decision separates reunification with a noncustodial parent from the need for continued supervision when one parent safely cares for the children. Inadequate visitation with that parent does not itself justify retaining jurisdiction, while discretionary enhancement services may address the relationship without creating a statutory right to reunification services.
The visitation analysis distinguishes a fixed judicial schedule from improper delegation, and the nunc pro tunc correction prevents contradictory minute orders from undermining the oral ruling and final judgment without changing the affirmed outcome.