Filed 7/6/26 In re Cesar S. CA2/8
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION EIGHT
In re Cesar S. et al., Persons B343767
Coming Under the Juvenile
Court Law.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY (Los Angeles County
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN Super. Ct. No. 23CCJP04076A–B)
AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
CESAR S., SR.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the orders of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County. Stephen C. Marpet, Commissioner.
Affirmed.
Jamie A. Moran, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_________________________________
INTRODUCTION
Cesar S., Sr., (Father) appeals from the juvenile court’s
findings and orders from the December 6, 2024 review hearing
terminating jurisdiction and granting sole legal and physical
custody to Yolanda D. (Mother). On appeal, Father argues the
juvenile court erred in not granting joint legal custody. The
Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) has taken
no position in this appeal. Because the trial court could
reasonably conclude Father had not substantially ameliorated
the risk to his children to support joint custody, we conclude the
juvenile court did not err.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
1. Section 300 petition
Father and Mother are the parents of Cesar S., a boy born
in May 2011 and C.S., a girl born in March 2014. Prior to the
start of these proceedings, both children lived with their parents.
On November 20, 2023, DCFS responded to a referral
regarding Father’s alleged sexual abuse of the children’s
maternal cousin R.M., who was taken into protective custody on
the same date. In DCFS’s November 30, 2023 detention report,
R.M. reported that Father’s sexual abuse began shortly after he
moved to the United States from El Salvador in 2021. R.M. was
about 13 years old and male. Father threatened to have R.M.
deported or not allow him to attend school if R.M. did not allow
Father to “sexually molest him.” The record indicates Father’s
sexual abuse of R.M. continued for two years until 2023 when
DCFS filed its petition. R.M. accused Father of sexual abuse but
Mother did not believe the allegation and instead told R.M. to
leave the home. R.M. later stated he was “forced to run away
from home out of fear” Father would continue to sexually abuse
2
him. R.M. no longer resided in the family home, and he is not
part of the petition.
In an interview with DCFS, Mother stated she did not
believe her nephew was sexually abused by Father and said her
nephew lied. She also denied “kick[ing] [R.M.] out of the home”
and instead said that R.M. ran away. Father denied any sexual
abuse. DCFS also interviewed the children who denied “all forms
of abuse and/or neglect.” However, Cesar reported that when he
misbehaved, Father would discipline Cesar by hitting him with a
belt, and that two weeks ago he was “whipped on his legs and
buttocks” by Father. The social worker observed no visible or
suspicious marks or bruises on Cesar, and neither child displayed
symptoms associated with any medical or emotional issues.
The trial court granted DCFS’s request for an emergency
removal order at the outset of the case. Both Cesar and C.S.
were placed in the home of the paternal aunt, Anna S.
Thereafter on November 29, 2023, DCFS filed a
dependency petition for Cesar and C.S. under Welfare and
Institutions Code section 300,1 sections (a), (b), (d) and (j),
alleging Father physically abused Cesar when he struck Cesar
with a belt on the child’s legs and buttocks (count a-1); Father
sexually abused R.M. and Mother’s response to the allegation
endangered the children (count b-1); Mother failed to protect
Cesar from Father’s physical abuse (count b-2); Father repeatedly
abused R.M. sexually since 2021, and Mother failed to protect the
children by allowing Father to reside in the family home despite
knowing the sexual abuse of R.M. (count d-1); and C.S. was at
1 All further undesignated statutory references are to the
Welfare and Institutions Code.
3
risk of harm due to Father’s physical abuse of Cesar and Mother’s
failure to protect the children by allowing Father to reside in the
same home (count j-1).
2. Adjudicational and dispositional hearings
At the adjudicational hearing held on May 14, 2024, the
juvenile court found true all allegations against the parents,
including the sexual abuse allegations against Father. Although
Father denied the allegations, the juvenile court, after reviewing
the evidence including R.M.’s forensic interview, found
substantial danger to Cesar and C.S. due to Father’s sexual
abuse of their cousin. While Father’s counsel argued Father
never sexually abused either of his own children and that they
were “differently situated,” the juvenile court rejected this
argument and found the children to be at risk. The court ordered
that the children continue to be detained from both parents and
the visits be monitored.
At the dispositional hearing held on June 24, 2024, the
juvenile court ordered release of both children to Mother on
condition that Father not reside in the family home. The court
took judicial notice of the sustained allegations of Father’s sexual
abuse of R.M. and removed the children from Father. The court
ordered Mother to complete a parenting class, individual
counseling, and sex abuse awareness counseling. As to Father,
the court ordered him to complete a parenting class, a sex abuse
for perpetrators program, and individual counseling “to address
the issues of sex abuse and its [effects] on the family.” The court
further ruled that Father’s visits with the children be monitored
and prohibited Mother from monitoring Father’s visits.
On June 24, 2024, Father appealed from the juvenile
court’s custody order. On January 22, 2025, Father’s appellate
4
counsel filed a brief under In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835,
finding no arguable issue exists. On March 7, 2025, after having
received no additional briefs from Father, this court dismissed
Father’s appeal.
At the time of the December 6, 2024 status review report,
Father finished a parenting program, participated in 13 sessions
of sex abuse awareness counseling for perpetrators, and attended
his ongoing individual counseling. However, he had not
completed either the sex abuse program or his individual
counseling. DCFS noted that Father was unable to continue
paying for the program and the counseling so he stopped
participating and did not complete them. As to monitored visits,
Father was only visiting with the children on Sundays due to his
work schedule, but they had daily telephone calls. Mother, in
contrast, completed her case plan.
3. Six-month review hearing
At the contested six-month review hearing held on
December 6, 2024, the juvenile court found Mother complied with
her case plan but Father did not, and ordered that jurisdiction be
terminated with sole legal and physical custody to Mother.
DCFS recommended that the court terminate jurisdiction by
granting joint legal custody with sole physical custody to Mother.
The court noted, “Mother’s complied with all of the services that
were ordered … and the issues that brought this [family] to court
have been resolved.” Father’s counsel requested that the case
remain open or otherwise terminate jurisdiction with joint legal
custody. Father’s counsel reiterated that Father had daily phone
contact with the children and participated in weekly visits. In
denying Father’s request, the court reasoned that Father still
needed to complete the sex abuse for perpetrators program and
5
individual counseling, and that “[a]t this time, the order would be
sole legal, physical and primary to [Mother],” and granted
monitored visitation to Father.
The court further stated that for Father to make any
changes to the orders, he would need to “complete everything [the
court] ordered him to do which is the sex abuse for perpetrator
program [and] individual counseling,” and “[o]nce he’s done that,
he can go to family court and ask a judge to make any changes.”
The court terminated jurisdiction pending receipt of the custody
order. On December 13, 2024, after receipt of the juvenile
custody order, the juvenile court terminated jurisdiction over the
children.
Father filed a timely appeal.
DISCUSSION
On appeal, Father argues the juvenile court abused its
discretion in denying him joint legal custody. He asserts he
complied and made good progress with his case plan until he
encountered funding issues. Based on our review of the record,
Father failed to complete his court-ordered sex abuse counseling
for perpetrators and individual counseling. Therefore, because
the court could reason that Father posed risks to the children, we
conclude the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in
granting sole legal custody to Mother.
1. Legal principles
When jurisdiction over a dependent child is terminated by
the juvenile court, section 362.4 authorizes the juvenile court “ ‘to
make custody and visitation orders [commonly referred to as an
“exit order”] that will be transferred to an existing family court
file and remain in effect until modified or terminated’ ” by the
family court. (In re Chantal S. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 196, 203;
6
accord, In re J.M. (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 95, 112 [§ 362.4 “governs
the termination of juvenile court jurisdiction and related
orders”].)
When making exit orders, the juvenile court’s “ ‘focus and
primary consideration must always be the best interests of the
child.’ ” (In re Maya L (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 81, 102–103; In re
J.M., supra, 89 Cal.App.5th at p. 112.) In addition, “ ‘[t]he
juvenile court has broad discretion to make custody … orders’ ”
when terminating jurisdiction. (In re J.M., at p. 112.) We review
the juvenile court’s exit order for abuse of discretion. (In re Maya
L., at p. 102; In re N.M. (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 1090, 1094.) The
juvenile court’s order will not be disturbed “ ‘ unless the court
“ ‘ “exceeded the limits of legal discretion by making an arbitrary,
capricious, or patently absurd determination.” ’ ” ’ ” (In re N.M.,
at p. 1094.)
2. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in
granting sole legal custody to Mother
Father does not contest Mother having sole physical
custody but argues the court erred in denying him joint legal
custody because he regularly participated in counseling sessions
and “made good progress until his funding ran dry.”
The juvenile court did not err in denying Father joint legal
custody when it found Father had not made substantial progress
with his case plan. Father was found to have sexually abused his
male nephew R.M. when R.M. was 13 years old. Cesar was
13 years old at the time of the hearing, the same age when
Father molested R.M. Our record also indicates Father denied
the allegation and maintained his denial at the adjudicational
hearing. Further, the completion of only 13 sessions of the sexual
7
abuse program supports the trial court’s conclusion that Father
had not ameliorated the risks to his children.
In summary, the juvenile court’s findings and orders were
based on the sexual abuse finding against Father and avoiding
future risk of harm to Cesar and C.S. Because the juvenile
court’s custody orders were focused on the best interests of the
children and are supported by the record, we find no abuse of
discretion. (In re J.M., supra, 89 Cal.App.5th at p. 112.)
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court’s exit orders are affirmed.
VIRAMONTES, J.
WE CONCUR:
WILEY, Acting P. J.
SCHERB, J.
8