Filed 6/24/26 B.R. v. Superior Court 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
B.R.,
Petitioner, E088409
v. (Super.Ct.No. DPSW2400275)
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF OPINION
RIVERSIDE COUNTY,
Respondent;
RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT
OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES,
Real Party in Interest.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ. Sean P. Crandell,
Judge. Petition denied.
Mitchell R. Vande Witte for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
1
Minh C. Tran, County Counsel, Jamila T. Purnell and Prabhath Shettigar, Deputy
County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
The juvenile court terminated petitioner B.R.’s (mother) reunification services and
set the Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing.1 By petition for
extraordinary writ, mother contends the juvenile court erred in concluding that real party
in interest, the Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (the department),
provided her and Z.R. (minor, born August 2017) with reasonable services. Mother also
maintains the court erred in its finding of detriment in not returning minor to mother’s
custody. The petition is denied.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On August 4, 2024, the department received an immediate response referral with
allegations of general neglect and emotional abuse. Father’s live-in girlfriend filed a
police report accusing father of physically attacking her.2 She reported that earlier in the
day, she believed that father purchased cocaine while with her and their child.3 They
began to argue about the drugs. Father put his forearm around the girlfriend’s neck and
choked her while she was holding their child.
1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless
otherwise indicated.
2 Father is not a party to the petition. Father’s girlfriend, who is not minor’s
mother, is also not a party to the petition.
3 The child, minor’s half sibling, is not a party to the petition.
2
They drove home, where another altercation occurred. Father grabbed the
girlfriend’s arm, which caused bruising and redness. He also threw a bottle at her while
she was holding their child.
The social worker spoke with father by phone. He said that he and minor were in
Mexico where they had fled due to the incident between he and his girlfriend. Father said
he planned to return to the United States. Father confirmed that minor was not his
girlfriend’s child, that minor lived with him, and that he had been her primary parent
since birth. He reported that minor’s mother lived in Mexico. Father said he had no
contact information for mother, and mother had no contact with minor.
On August 10, 2024, the social worker took minor into protective custody. On
August 13, 2024, the department filed a juvenile dependency petition alleging that mother
had failed to provide for minor (b-1), that father had a history of domestic violence (b-2),
that father had a history of abusing controlled substances (b-3), and that mother’s
whereabouts were unknown (g-1).4
At the detention hearing on August 14, 2024, mother’s counsel noted, “I’ve asked
the Department to continue its efforts and, perhaps, file a declaration of due diligence
with mother’s whereabouts.” The court detained minor.
In the jurisdiction and disposition report, the social worker recommended the court
find the allegations in the petition true, remove minor from parents’ custody, deny mother
reunification services, and order reunification services for father. On August 16, 2024,
4 On October 22, 2024, the department filed a first amended petition, which
removed the g-1 allegation.
3
the department placed minor in the home of the paternal grandmother. “[F]ather stated he
does not have contact information pertaining to the mother. He has not had
communication with the mother, since the child was one year old. The father stated he
has full legal custody of the child in Mexico.” Minor “stated she has not seen her mother
in years, since she was a baby. She stated she did not know where her mother was.”
On October 15, 2024, the department filed a declaration of due diligence in which
they indicated they had located mother in Mexico. The social worker spoke with mother,
who confirmed her identity. The social worker notified mother of the next hearing date.
In an addendum report, the social worker changed her recommendations to include
the striking of the g-1 allegation and that reunification services be offered to mother.
“[M]other reported she is open to services the Department recommends; however, stated
she completed a parenting education class in Mexico. The mother stated she would be
providing me the certificate via text message by today.” The social worker received a
text message from mother with a completed certificate for parenting education with
“Mexico’s Children’s Services Department. . . . This was completed from April 23 to
July 30, 2024.” Mother indicated she wanted custody of minor.
At the hearing on October 22, 2024, mother appeared telephonically. Mother’s
counsel requested a continuance: “I was just recently connected with the mother. In
speaking to mother, she indicates that she has been attending therapy for some time, so
I’m hoping to get that information to the Department. [¶] Additionally, she has
attempted to come to the United States since this case started with much difficulty, so I’m
4
asking the Court to order the case file be made available to the Mexican Consulate to
assist mother in obtaining a humanitarian or some type of other Visa for her to be present
and participate.” “I would ask the Court to make an order as to telephonic and video
visits with the minor’s wishes to be taken into consideration.” “I think there has been a
lot of things going on and the minor and mother need to start to reconnect as she has been
removed from the mother for some time.”
Minor’s counsel noted, “visitation needs to include minor’s wishes be taken into
consideration. We may need to have joint therapy between the mother and the child
before visitation can progress. It’s my understanding that Mother has not seen her in
three years, so we’re talking about her being four years old, perhaps, the last time mother
saw her, so I think some counseling is going to be warranted here.” Mother’s counsel
responded, “I would ask the Court to authorize the Department to provide a joint
counseling referral when that’s appropriate.”
The court ordered “the Department to contact the Mexican Consulate and advise
them of the pending case . . . .” “[T]he goal is that by the Department reaching out to the
Consulate, when mom submits any necessary paperwork, there will at least be official
contact from the Department of Social Services to the Mexican authorities so that when
mom’s documentation is received, there is some extra layer of legitimacy attached to it
that the Mexican authorities and the American immigration system would understand
why she’s making the necessary petitions that she is.”
5
The court ordered “visitation to occur one time a week for at least a 30-minute
phone call or Zoom call. Minor’s wishes to be taken into consideration, and the
Department is authorized to liberalize that if appropriate. [¶] I’ll order the Department to
make referrals for individual counseling on behalf of the minor. I will authorize the
Department to explore and make referrals for conjoint counseling if it’s recommended for
the individual counsel by the minor.”
In the December 5, 2024, addendum report, the social worker reported that minor
did not wish to speak with mother: “The paternal grandmother stated she asked different
times and days and [minor] was adamant she did not want to.” The social worker spoke
to minor, who “stated she does not want to speak to her mother. She reported her mother
would ‘hit me and . . . locked me in a restroom.’ She stated her mother burnt her with an
iron on her finger.”
The paternal grandmother “stated the mother was not involved with the child’s life
since she was two years old. When [minor] was small, the mother returned her with a
small burn mark on her finger, as it appeared the child was burned with an iron. She
reported she took [minor] to the doctor and reported the mother has not made contact
with her since then.”
The social worker informed mother that minor did not want to speak with her.
“[M]other reported she understood and inquired if the child was attending individual
counseling. I informed her [minor] is attending therapy on a bi-weekly basis and if there
are any changes with the child’s behaviors, her therapist will make changes.” “[M]other
6
reported she understands it has been several years; however, she is doing everything she
can to reunify with . . . [minor]. The mother reported she is in the process [of] obtaining
her Visa and reported she is only waiting for her appointment.”
Mother appeared telephonically at the jurisdiction and disposition hearing on
December 10, 2024. The department submitted on admission of the social worker’s
reports, which the court moved into evidence.
Minor’s counsel noted, “I would just ask that any visitations with Mother still
proceed with the minor’s wishes being—taken into consideration. [¶] At this time, she’s
expressed that she does not want to have in-person visits or even telephone visits with
Mother. I’m hoping with therapy further down the road she will want to have visitations,
but at this time she does not.”
Mother’s counsel informed the court, “If Mother were to testify, she would testify
that she loves her daughter very much and would like to reunify with her as soon as
possible and is willing to do anything necessary to achieve that.” The parties stipulated
to mother’s proposed testimony.
Mother’s counsel noted, “my client did correspond with the Mexican consulate.
She has received an appointment for a, quote, unquote, ‘Emergency Visa or assessment,’
and that appointment will be in May. So if there is anything that Department can do to
assist Mother, I would ask them to continue to provide that assistance.”
The court found the allegations in the amended petition true, sustained the petition,
declared minor a dependent of the court, removed minor from parents’ custody, and
7
ordered reunification services for both parents. “As to visitation, I will make an order
that minor’s wishes continue to be taken into consideration.”
The court noted, “I’m adopting the remainder of the recommendations contained
in the social worker’s report.” The social worker’s recommendations included the
following order: “Visitation between the child . . . and the parents be supervised and
directed by the Department,” including once monthly in-person visitation with parents.
In the status review report filed May 28, 2025, the social worker recommended the
court continue reunification services to parents. The social worker recommended
visitation be as directed and approved by the department, including minor to travel to
Mexico to visit with family. Father was incarcerated on charges stemming from the
events in the instant case and in another case involving 10 charges of various sexual
molestation offenses against two children, neither of whom were minor.5
Minor “stated she is happy to be at her grandmother’s home . . . . A home
evaluation was completed, and [minor] has her own room and there were no concerns as
to the home. There was enough food to eat, and the home was free from any safety
hazards.”
Mother had been unable to return to the United States but wanted to have video
and phone calls with minor. However, minor refused any visitation with mother.
“Throughout this review period, I spoke with [minor] regarding telephonic visits with her
mother. The child stated she does not want to speak to her mother. She reported her
5 Father was later convicted in the latter case, and a court sentenced defendant to
10 years in prison.
8
mother would ‘hit me and my sister, . . .’ I spoke with the mother and informed the
mother that at this time the child does not wish to speak to her. The mother reported she
understood. The mother reported she was concerned and feels the father told [minor]
mean things about her, so she would not speak to her. . . . The mother reported she is in
the process [of] obtaining her Visa and reported she is only waiting for her appointment.”
“On Mach 05, 2025, the Department supervised a video call visit between [minor]
and the mother . . . . [Minor] kept quiet during the beginning of the visit. The mother
was appropriate and patient with [minor] not wanting to speak. [Minor] then told the
mother ‘I already told you several times that I do not want to talk to you, you hit my
sister.’ Mother then replied to [minor] and told her that she loved her and that she will be
there for her when . . . she wants to speak to her.” The social worker then ended the call.
“Since March 2025, the Department has attempted to engage[] [minor] with talking to the
mother, yet [minor] has replied that she does not want to visit her mother.”
Mother appeared telephonically at the hearing on June 9, 2025. The department
requested the court “to authorize the minor to travel to Mexico with the paternal
grandmother who is the current caregiver . . . .”
Minor’s counsel noted, “As to the minor traveling to Mexico, I have no objection.
It’s my understanding that the mother lives in the same general area and that her counsel
would be asking for visitation. So I would ask that the Department assess either the
grandparents or a third party to be approved to supervise mother’s visits. [¶] From
reading the report, it does appear that the child still does not want to have visitations with
9
mother. I think there was one Zoom visit where the child had made that statement.
However, I would like her, perhaps, to have the opportunity . . . to have in-person visits,
and she may be in the same area. But I would request that minor’s wishes be taken into
consideration as to any visitation with mother.”
Minor’s counsel noted, “The Zoom visit did not seem to go very well, but the child
could change her mind . . . . I want to make sure that that visit is going to be supervised
by someone approved by the Department, and I want to make sure that, if the child
remains adamant that she does not want to have visits with mother, that she’s not being
forced to just because she’s there in person.”
Mother’s counsel asked that “the current visitation order remain in effect and that
mom be provided supervised visitation. No objection to the minor’s wishes being taken
into consideration.” The department observed, “I do believe that mother does live in the
area where the minor will be visiting. So I would just ask the Court to continue to
authorize that to occur, and maybe the paternal grandmother could be the supervisor of
those visits, and the Department can talk to her about that with minor’s wishes to be
taken into consideration.”
The court continued reunification services for parents and approved travel to
Mexico to visit with the paternal grandfather. The court further ordered, “If there is
proposed in-person visitation or any telephonic visitation between the minor and mother,
and it appears that that may be a possibility given the proximity between the
grandparents’ residence in Mexico and mother’s residence, the prior order as to visitation
10
does not preclude that from occurring, and so that remains ordered subject to the minor’s
wishes.”
“[A]s to the Court’s order that minor’s wishes are to be taken into consideration,
discuss ways in which that can be done to ensure that mom’s right to visitation is not
interfered with but that the minor’s wishes are truly taken into consideration, and the
Department to discuss with the caregiver the likely consequences that could occur should
the caregiver not honor the minor’s wishes.” “And if there’s an opportunity for a visit
and the minor wants to have that visit supervised by the paternal grandmother, there’s
nothing wrong with that. If the minor doesn’t want to have the visit and it’s forced on
her, then that’s not okay, as long as the Department makes that clear.”
In the status review report filed September 29, 2025, the social worker
recommended parents’ reunification services be terminated. The social worker noted that
the court had previously, “ordered the mother’s visitation be by telephone/video, one time
per week for thirty minutes, supervised. Court ordered the child’s wishes to be taken into
consideration regarding visitation with the mother. The Court authorized the Department
to explore and provide referrals for conjoint counseling if the child’s therapist deems
appropriate.”
The International Liaison Unit (ILU) “indicated that [a] socioeconomic study is
still in progress and the Mexican Consulate would be updating the Depart[]ment on the
results.” The ILU requested a recommendation from the Mexican department for social
assistance (DIF) as to whether it would be appropriate to return minor to her custody;
11
DIF had yet to respond. A socioeconomic study indicated that mother had necessary
financial capacity to care for minor.6
“The mother is able to visit in the U.S. through a U.S. visitor visa, but has not
visited the child this review period. The child continues to refuse to visit her mother, and
when encouraged to visit and schedule visits, the child refuses to attend visits or have
contact with her mother. [¶] From July 01, 2025, to July 14, 2025, the Department
attempted to schedule a visit between the mother and the child, but she refused to visit
her mother. On June 11, 2025, the Department reached out to the ILU to inquire [about]
assistance from the Mexican Consulate to supervise visits. The paternal grandmother
reported she is ok with supervising the mother’s visits, but the child continues to refuse to
visit or have any contact with her mother. Therefore, no visit took place in Mexico
between the mother and the child.”
The social worker reported, “Throughout this review period, I spoke with [minor]
regarding visits with her mother. The child stated she does not want to speak to her
mother. I asked [minor] what needs to happen for her to feel comfortable visiting her
mother. [Minor] replied ‘she needs to stop insisting for me to visit her.’” “The risk and
detriment to the child is high, as the mother resides in Mexico and the recommendation to
return the child from the Mexican Consulate has not been provided.” “The child reports
fearing the mother due to her witnessing being hurt in her care and of her other half
6 It is unclear from the record why it was reported both that the socioeconomic
report was “still in progress” but also that it was sufficiently completed to indicate mother
had the financial wherewithal to care for minor.
12
sibling.” “The concurrent plan recommendation is adoption. Paternal grandmother is
willing to adopt the child should reunification fail with the parents.”
At the hearing on October 9, 2025, mother’s counsel requested the matter be set
for a contested hearing. He requested “authorization for conjoint or family therapy
between the mother and minor.” Minor’s counsel joined in the request. Mother’s counsel
noted, “the concern here is that the minor does not want to speak with mother, does not
want to have visits with mother, and it is very concerning to me that mother’s going
through all this effort in the expectation that her daughter would be sent to her, perhaps in
Mexico, and they have not even had any telephone contact.”
The court set the matter for a contested hearing and ordered “the Department to
make conjoint therapy referrals in the event the parties are capable of participating in
that.”
In the addendum report filed November 13, 2025, the department recommended
the court set the matter for the section 366.26 hearing. The social worker submitted a
referral for conjoint therapy between mother and minor. Minor had an initial assessment
on October 21, 2025, and had an upcoming therapy session scheduled for November 20,
2025. The therapist would begin therapy with minor weekly for three months “before
implementing family sessions with the mother.” “[T]hen family sessions can take place
one time a month to see how child and mother interact. If [minor] does not want to have
the mother in sessions, she cannot force her and cannot do family sessions.”
13
At the hearing on November 20, 2025, the department indicated it had changed its
recommendation to grant mother an additional six months of services. Mother’s counsel
submitted on the recommendation, “I’m in agreement with going to the 18-month date for
services as to mother. It’s my understanding that the Department will be reaching out to
mother to start some family therapy once . . . the child’s therapist is ready and the child is
ready for that to take place.” The department agreed: “The Department’s going to be in
contact with mother, as well as the child’s therapist, with regards to conjoint therapy. The
only caveat to that is that my understanding is, through the therapist, that she can only
conduct that conjoint therapy if mother is in the United States.”
Minor’s counsel noted, “I would certainly request that visitation between mother
and the minor be done in a therapeutic setting and that minor’s wishes be taken into
consideration.” “I just want to make sure that the child’s not being forced to do
something that she’s not ready to do.” The court noted, “I think what the parties
contemplated and what the Court is going to require is that initial efforts will occur in a
therapeutic setting. But if the minor does express a desire to have visitation outside of
that setting, nothing the Court’s saying or ordering is going to prevent that from
occurring.”
The court terminated father’s reunification services, continued mother’s
reunification services, and ordered “the Department to provide conjoint therapy and/or
family therapy to the mother and the minor. And, as we indicated, minor’s wishes are to
be taken into consideration.”
14
In the 18-month status review report filed January 26, 2026, the social worker
recommended the court terminate mother’s reunification services and set the section
366.26 hearing. Minor’s therapist “reported that she has been providing therapy to
[minor], but family sessions have not begun due to the child refusing to attend family
sessions with the mother . . . .” A family session was scheduled for January 29, 2026.
The social worker informed mother that “should the child refuse to have her in the
session, the therapist cannot force the child to participate in the family session.”
On November 19, and 24; December 1, 8, 15, 22, and 29, 2025; and January 5,
and 12, 2026, the department “encouraged and asked the child about visiting her mother.”
Minor “responded that she does not want to visit her mother because she does not feel the
mother has changed and because the mother has hit her in the past.”
The social worker posited, “The risk and detriment to the child is high, there are
relationship issues between the mother and the child, as the child keeps refusing to have
contact with the mother. The child reports fearing the mother due to prior instances of
her and her half siblings being hurt in the mother’s care.”
At the hearing on February 10, 2026, counsel for the department noted, “This
primarily is coming down to the fact that this child will not visit with the mother. And
the Department did inquire weekly of the child during this last reporting period.” “[A]nd
Mom has been able to come for family sessions . . . if the child is going to be in
agreement with that, but that’s something that cannot be forced. So we’re kind of in a
quandary right now as to how this matter is proceeding . . . .”
15
Minor’s counsel reported, “I’ve spoken to the minor numerous times, and she’s
consistent and adamant that she’s not ready for any communication with Mother. She’s
just not open to it, and I don’t see that we’re going to be moving in the near term to
forcing her to do any type of communication visits or therapy with Mom. She—it’s
almost detrimental to keep asking her. She gets very, very upset when she’s being asked.
She trembles, she’s scared, she’s emotional, and I just don’t see that changing in a short
term.” The court set the matter for a contested hearing.
In the March 17, 2026, addendum report, the social worker indicated, “During this
reporting period, the Department attempted to address the relationship issues between the
mother and the child by implementing family sessions. However, the child continued to
refuse to have any contact with the mother and refused for the mother to be invited into
session. The family therapist observed concerns with the family sessions causing distress
to [minor], such as anxiety and fears related to family sessions, and [minor] reporting fear
of the mother joining the sessions. The therapist has recommended [to] not continue to
have the family sessions due to the child’s observed anxiety and until the child is ready to
address the relationship with mother.” “The Department does not feel it is safe for the
child to return to the mother due to the child refusing to have contact with the mother and
the issues with their relationship.”
At the contested hearing on March 24, 2026, mother’s counsel argued, “I think the
Court understands that the legal system is not set up for the minors to unilaterally make
decisions and unilaterally determine the case—or the course of a particular case, which
16
ultimately is unfortunately what has happened here. There . . . is basically no
demonstration of any risk of harm in Mother’s care.”
Minor’s counsel submitted on the department’s recommendations: “I think that
it’s also not fair to minimize the amount of trauma this child has experienced and
continues to experience through this forced attempt . . . to interact with the mother. I also
take exception to the suggestion that there’s not a preponderance of evidence . . . to
suggest that the child would experience substantial risk of harm if returned to Mother.”
“We have an expert opinion in this report from the child’s therapist that states the child is
experiencing emotional distress to the extent that the therapist has determined it would be
detrimental to her emotional health to force her to have even therapy sessions with the
mother.”
Minor’s counsel continued, “I have personally experienced her distress numerous
times when I’ve attempted to have her interact with Mother in any way or even agree to
have interactions with Mother. It has been consistent. It has been ongoing for the life of
this case. She is eight years old. She is old enough to know what’s going on.”
The department noted it “continued to make weekly contact with the child
regarding continued visitation or attempts at visitation and counseling with Mother, and
minor continued to state she did not want to proceed with that.”
Minor’s counsel added that the therapist believed that further attempts to compel
minor to engage in joint therapy “could have a lifelong effect on [minor] associating
therapy with the trauma of what she’s experiencing today.” “And we have a therapist
17
who is saying, ‘I don’t want to be the one to cause this . . . child so much trauma that she
may never engage in therapy or any type of mental health services again because she’s
always going to associate it with the trauma of what she’s going through now.’”
The court indicated it wanted “to get more information from the therapist and get a
report or have the therapist here in person to state their observations, why they feel that
way, their qualifications, how much time they’ve had with the minor. And if some expert
witness is here and either states in a report that’s moved into evidence from the therapist
laying out a basis that additional services are not going to be of assistance to the minor or
they’re going to be detrimental to the minor, I think that would assist the Court in
following that recommendation.” “If the therapist can’t sustain that position or appears to
be speculative or conclusory or there’s some actual belief that additional services would
change the outcome, then I’d be inclined to potentially give Mom an additional six
months of services.” Thus, the court continued the matter.
On April 21, 2026, the department filed an addendum report in which the social
worker reported that minor’s therapist indicated that minor was not receptive to sessions
with mother. The therapist “observed concerns with the family sessions causing distress
to [minor], such as anxiety and fears related to family sessions, and [minor] reporting fear
of the mother joining the sessions. The therapist has recommended not continuing to
have the family sessions due to the child’s observed anxiety and until the child is ready to
address the relationship with mother.”
18
The social worker attached to the report the therapist’s letter of discharge and
progress report. In the latter, the therapist noted that she had provided minor with three
months of services. Minor refused to come into the therapist’s office if she expected
mother to be there too. Minor “would have physiological responses the moment I would
initiate walking into the office with [mother] being present. Such physiological
responses would be the [minor] wanting to cry, stating not wanting to go in and holding
grandma. Furthermore, as a therapist I cannot provide services that may cause harm to
[minor] nor create a negative association to therapy.”
At the hearing on April 24, 2026, the department submitted on the reports. The
court noted that the therapist reported that “it caused visible distress with [minor] when
visitation [with mother] was attempted, even in a therapeutic setting.” Minor’s counsel
noted that the paternal grandmother was now seeking “legal guardianship in lieu of
adoption,” which would allow minor “to have the time to mature and to have the
opportunity to still address and pursue a relationship with her mother when she is ready.”
Mother’s counsel effectively argued that the department had failed to offer
reasonable services by failing to ensure visitation between mother and minor. Mother’s
counsel requested the court return minor to mother’s custody or offer her six more
months of services.
The department noted that it made constant attempts to encourage and request
minor to engage in joint therapy and visitation; however, minor repeatedly declined: “We
can’t physically force the child to participate.” Minor’s counsel observed, “that the
19
therapist’s letter clearly lays out substantial risk of harm that would occur if the Court
were to return to mother on family maintenance today.”
The court found that mother had made significant efforts to reunify with minor.
However, the court found that “it’s not just that [minor] doesn’t want the visits, but that
she actively becomes emotional and upset and it’s causing her psychological trauma. It’s
detrimental to her to continue trying to force her to do that.” The court found return of
minor to mother’s custody “would be traumatic to [minor], who is clearly bonded to her
current caregiver and wants to remain in her care.”
The court moved the reports into evidence and found that the department had
provided mother reasonable services. The court further found that because of minor’s
issues, mother was unable to participate regularly and make substantive progress in her
services. Thus, the court terminated mother’s services and set the section 366.26 hearing.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Reasonableness of Services
Mother contends the court erred in determining that she and minor received
reasonable reunification services. Specifically, she maintains that visitation was
improperly controlled by minor. We disagree.
“When a child has been removed from a parent’s custody, the court ordinarily
must order child welfare services designed to facilitate the reunification of the family.
[Citations.] . . . ‘“Reunification services,”’ we have explained, ‘“implement ‘the law’s
strong preference for maintaining the family relationships if at all possible.’”’ [Citation.]
20
This is because ‘services enable [parents] to demonstrate parental fitness and so regain
custody of their dependent children.’ [Citation.]” (Michael G. v. Superior Court (2023)
14 Cal.5th 609, 624, fn. omitted (Michael G.).)
“‘Visitation is a critical component, probably the most critical component, of a
reunification plan.’ [Citation.] ‘Without visitation of some sort, it is virtually impossible
for a parent to achieve reunification.’ [Citation.] ‘The absence of visitation will not only
prejudice a parent’s interests at a section 366.26 hearing but may “virtually assure[] the
erosion (and termination) of any meaningful relationship” between [parent] and child.’
[Citation.]” (Serena M. v. Superior Court (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 659, 673.)
“‘The standard is not whether the services provided were the best that might be
provided in an ideal world, but whether the services were reasonable under the
circumstances.’ [Citation.] The ‘adequacy of reunification plans and the reasonableness
of the [Agency’s] efforts are judged according to the circumstances of each case.’
[Citation.]” (In re A.G. (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 994, 1001.)
“We review a reasonable services finding to determine if it is supported by
substantial evidence. [Citation.] We consider the evidence in the light most favorable to
the prevailing party and indulge in all legitimate and reasonable inferences to uphold the
court’s ruling. [Citation.] The burden is on the petitioner to show that the evidence is
insufficient to support the juvenile court’s findings. [Citation.]” (In re A.G., supra, 12
Cal.App.5th at p. 1001.)
21
“When a child refuses visitation, it is the parent’s burden to request a specific type
of enforcement, or a specific change to the visitation order. Absent a request, it is not the
court’s burden to sua sponte come up with a solution to the intractable problem of a
child’s steadfast refusal to visit a parent.” (In re Sofia M. (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 1038,
1046 [The court does not err when it orders visitation, but the minor refuses to
participate]; accord, In re P.L. (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 406, 410.)
“[T]he child’s input and refusal and the possible adverse consequences if a visit is
forced against the child’s will are factors to be considered in administering visitation.
[Citation.]” (In re S.H. (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 310, 317.) The juvenile court can order
visitation and specify “the frequency and length of visits, but reserve[] to [the minor’s]
therapist the determination when it would be safe for [the minor] to begin visits with her
mother in a therapeutic setting. (In re C.S. (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 631, 639.)
It is “not the court’s duty to ensure . . . efforts [are] ultimately effective in
overcoming [a minor’s] opposition to visitation. The reality in many of these cases is that
the parent has irreparably damaged the relationship beyond salvage. This cannot be
presumed, of course, and thus courts must, consistent with the child’s well-being, order
visitation and enforce that order appropriately. But if it turns out, after reasonable efforts
have been exhausted, the child simply cannot be persuaded to visit, that, in and of itself,
is not a basis for reversal.” (In re Sofia M., supra, 24 Cal.App.5th at p. 1047.)
First, we note that mother never met her burden of requesting specific enforcement
of or a change to the visitation order when minor refused to visit. In fact, with respect to
22
visitation, mother expressly offered no objection to “minor’s wishes being taken into
consideration.” Thus, mother invited or forfeited any contention that the court’s
visitation orders deprived her of reasonable services. (In re Sofia M., supra, 24
Cal.App.5th at p. 1046; In re P.L., supra, 100 Cal.App.5th at p. 410.)
Second, the court and the department properly attempted to balance mother’s right
to visitation with the potential adverse consequences to minor’s well-being should she be
forced to visit with mother. Mother and minor had at least one, short video visit, during
which minor told mother, “‘I already told you several times that I do not want to talk to
you, you hit my sister.’” Nonetheless, the court repeatedly ordered visitation between
minor and mother.
When the paternal grandmother requested authorization to take minor to Mexico,
the parties noted the proximity of the location to mother’s residence; the department
requested the court to authorize in-person visits between mother and minor when she was
in Mexico, which the court did.
However, minor continually, adamantly refused to speak with mother. The
department had asked minor what would need to happen for her to feel comfortable
visiting mother; minor responded that mother “‘needs to stop insisting for me to visit
her.’”
Nevertheless, the department continually attempted to encourage minor to visit
with mother. “Since March 2025, the Department has attempted to engage [minor] with
talking to the mother, yet [minor] has replied that she does not want to visit her mother.”
23
“From July 01, 2025, to July 14, 2025, the Department attempted to schedule a visit
between the mother and the child, but she refused to visit her mother.” On November 19,
and 24; December 1, 8, 15, 22, and 29, 2025; and January 5, and 12, 2026, the
department “encouraged and asked the child about visiting her mother.” The department
noted it “continued to make weekly contact with the child regarding continued visitation
or attempts at visitation and counseling with Mother, and minor continued to state she did
not want to proceed with that.”
Contemporaneous with visitation orders, the court ordered referrals for individual
counseling for minor and joint counseling if recommended by minor’s therapist. Minor’s
therapist “reported that she has been providing therapy to [minor], but family sessions
have not begun due to the child refusing to attend family sessions with the mother . . . .”
Minor revealed her refusal to visit with mother stemmed, at least in part, due to
allegations she made, and the paternal grandmother corroborated in part, that mother had
committed abuse against her and her sibling.
Minor’s counsel noted with respect to visitation between them, “it’s almost
detrimental to keep asking her. She gets very, very upset when she’s being asked. She
trembles, she’s scared, she’s emotional, and I just don’t see that changing in a short
term.” The “therapist observed concerns with the family sessions causing distress to
[minor], such as anxiety and fears related to family sessions, and [minor] reporting fear of
the mother joining the sessions. The therapist has recommended not [to] continue to have
24
the family sessions due to the child’s observed anxiety and until the child is ready to
address the relationship with mother.”
Even still, the court indicated it wanted “to get more information from the
therapist and get a report or have the therapist here in person to state their observations,
why they feel that way, their qualifications, how much time they’ve had with the minor.”
In the subsequent letter, the therapist noted that she had provided minor with three
months of services. Minor would refuse to come into the therapist’s office if she
expected mother to be there too. Minor “would have physiological responses the moment
I would initiate walking into the office with [mother] being present. Such physiological
responses would be the [minor] wanting to cry, . . . not wanting to go in and holding
grandma. Furthermore, as a therapist I cannot provide services that may cause harm to
[minor] nor create a negative association to therapy.”
Thus, the court’s finding that compelling visitation would result in “psychological
trauma” was supported by substantial evidence.7 Likewise, the court’s finding that the
department had provided mother reasonable services was supported by substantial
evidence. The department maintained reasonable contact with mother during the course
of the service plan, and made reasonable efforts to assist mother with visitation, where
compliance proved difficult. (In re A.G., supra, 12 Cal.App.5th at p. 1001.)
The reality of this case is that mother, both by her lack of presence in minor’s life
for years prior to the proceedings and by her purported abuse of minor and minor’s
7 We note that mother’s counsel could have subpoenaed the therapist to testify at
the hearing, but did not.
25
sibling, had intractably and irreparably damaged the relationship beyond salvage. Here,
the court exhausted all reasonable efforts to provide visitation. Thus, minor’s refusal to
visit with mother is not a basis for reversal. (In re Sofia M., supra, 24 Cal.App.5th at
p. 1047.)
B. Detriment
Mother contends the court erred in not returning minor to her custody. We
disagree.
“[T]he court is required to return the child to the parent’s physical custody unless
the Agency proves, by a preponderance of the evidence, that return would create a
substantial risk of detriment to the child’s physical or emotional well-being. [Citation.]
We review the evidence most favorably to the prevailing party and indulge in all
legitimate and reasonable inferences to uphold the court’s ruling. [Citation] ‘The failure
of the parent or legal guardian to participate regularly and make substantive progress in
court-ordered treatment programs shall be prima facie evidence that return would be
detrimental.’ [Citation.]” (In re Mary B. (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1474, 1483 (Mary B.).)
We review a finding of detriment for substantial evidence. “‘We do not evaluate
the credibility of witnesses, attempt to resolve conflicts in the evidence or determine the
weight of the evidence. Instead, we draw all reasonable inferences in support of the
findings, view the record favorably to the juvenile court’s order and affirm the order even
if there is other evidence supporting a contrary finding.’ [Citation.]” (In re M.D. (2023)
93 Cal.App.5th 836, 857.)
26
“Reunification services are ordinarily provided for a maximum of 18 months after
a child has been removed from parental custody. [Citations.]” (Michael G., supra,
14 Cal.5th at p. 625.) “‘[I]n order to prevent children from spending their lives in the
uncertainty of foster care, there must be a limitation on the length of time a child has to
wait for a parent to become adequate.’ [Citation.] If the child has already been out of the
parent’s custody for 18 months and still cannot be safely returned, the statute instructs
that the court ordinarily must proceed to schedule a permanency planning hearing under
section 366.26, at which the court decides whether to terminate parental rights and place
the child for adoption or else select another permanent plan. [Citations.]” (Id. at p. 627.)
Here, for many of the reasons discussed ante, the court’s finding of detriment was
supported by substantial evidence. Father reported that neither he nor minor had contact
with mother since minor was one year old. Minor “stated she has not seen her mother in
years, since she was a baby.” Mother’s counsel reported mother had not seen minor for
“three years, so we’re talking about [minor] being four years old, perhaps, the last time
mother saw her, . . . .” By the time the court terminated mother’s reunification services,
minor was eight years old. Thus, mother had been out of minor’s life for between four
and seven years prior to the proceedings and, thus, had little, if any, relationship with
minor.
Mother had 18 months of services. She lived in another country in which return
with family maintenance services would have been difficult, if not impossible, to oversee.
Minor’s solely discussed memories of mother were of abuse mother allegedly inflicted
27
upon her and her sibling, allegations which were partially corroborated by the paternal
grandmother.8
Minor consistently refused to have even telephonic or video visitation with mother
or participate in joint therapy with her. Moreover, the therapist posited that participation
in joint counseling with mother would be detrimental to minor. Furthermore, minor’s
counsel opined that even continued requests that minor visit or participate in counseling
with mother was causing minor trauma. It is difficult to fathom a situation where minor’s
participation in visitation or joint counseling with mother, or even asking her to do so,
could result in emotional trauma, but return of minor to mother’s custody would not.
Thus, substantial evidence supports the court’s determination that it would be detrimental
to return minor to mother’s custody.
8 Mother complains that the paternal grandmother’s statements were hearsay.
However, section 281 “is now generally understood to authorize the admission of a social
worker’s report—including hearsay in the report—in any dependency proceeding.
[Citation.]” (In re M.B. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1057, 1071; see In re Lucero (2000) 22
Cal.4th 1227, 1242-1243 [“hearsay statements contained in social studies should be
admissible even if they do not meet the requirements of the child dependency exception
and even if the minor is incompetent to testify”].) “[R]eliance on such hearsay is subject
to due process objections if opposing parties are not timely provided copies, given an
opportunity to subpoena and examine the social worker and the person(s) whose hearsay
statements are contained in the report, and permitted to introduce evidence by way of
rebuttal.” (In re Jonique W. (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 685, 698.) Here, mother’s counsel
did not object when the department requested, and the court granted, submission of the
matter on the social worker’s reports containing the paternal grandmother’s statements.
Moreover, mother’s counsel could have, but did not, subpoena the paternal grandmother
and/or social worker to testify regarding the statements. Finally, mother’s counsel did
not offer any rebuttal evidence, such as mother’s testimony. Thus, counsel forfeited any
objection to the statements as inadmissible hearsay.
28
III. DISPOSITION
The petition is denied.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER
Acting P. J.
We concur:
MILLER
J.
LEE
J.
29