Filed 11/4/26 In re E.P. CA2/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO
In re E.P., Jr., a Person Coming B349385
Under the Juvenile Court Law.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY (Los Angeles County
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN Super. Ct.
AND FAMILY SERVICES, No. 20CCJP03198B)
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
D.Z.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Mary E. Kelly, Judge. Affirmed.
Cristina Gabrielidis, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Jacklyn K. Louie,
Assistant County Counsel, and Veronica Randazzo, Deputy
County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
______________________________
Defendant and appellant D.Z. (mother) challenges the
juvenile court’s order implementing a permanent plan for her
son, E.P., Jr. (minor, born Jan. 2022). (Welf. & Inst. Code,
§ 366.26.)1 The order established legal guardianship for minor
and ordered monitored visits for mother and E.P. (father).2
Mother contends that the court abused its discretion by ordering
monitored visitation. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
I. Dependency Petition; Release to Mother
In March 2022, the Los Angeles County Department of
Children and Family Services (DCFS) filed a section 300 petition
seeking the juvenile court’s exercise of dependency jurisdiction
over minor. The petition alleged that parents had a history of
engaging in violent altercations and that mother “has a history of
substance abuse including amphetamine, methamphetamine and
marijuana, and is a current abuser of methamphetamine,”
rendering her incapable of providing the constant care and
supervision needed for a child of such a young age. A DCFS
report provided further context regarding mother’s drug abuse.
1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and
Institutions Code.
2 Father is not a party to this appeal. We refer to mother
and father, collectively, as the parents.
2
Minor’s older sister, U.S., had been detained shortly after she
was born in June 2020 because mother tested positive for
amphetamines and methamphetamines during pregnancy. In
October 2021, while pregnant with minor, mother tested positive
for methamphetamines.
At the detention hearing in March 2022, the juvenile court
detained minor from parental custody with monitored visitation.
At the adjudication hearing held in May 2022, the court
sustained an interlineated dependency petition based upon
parents’ violent altercations and mother’s and father’s drug
abuse. Leading up to the disposition hearing, mother
participated in a substance abuse program and other services,
consistently tested negative for drugs, and visited minor
regularly.
At the disposition hearing in July 2022, the juvenile court
declared minor a dependent of the court, removed him from
father’s custody, and ordered him released to mother under
DCFS supervision. Mother’s case plan included participation in a
drug treatment program and drug testing. Between July 2022
and September 2022, mother completed a drug program and
consistently tested negative for controlled substances.
II. First Supplemental Petition
On October 20, 2022, police received a report that mother
passed out after inhaling from an aerosol can of computer duster,
and that mother had minor with her in a baby carrier. Mother
remained passed out until law enforcement arrived. When she
awoke, she was “ ‘loopy’ ” and incoherent.
On October 25, 2022, DCFS filed a section 387
supplemental petition alleging the prior disposition had not been
effective. Minor was detained and released to relative caregivers,
3
and the juvenile court ordered mother’s visits with minor to be
monitored. The court later learned that mother was arrested for
inhaling from canisters on a public bus on October 22, 2022. And
on November 1, 2022, before a scheduled visit with minor, mother
was observed and recorded inhaling an unknown substance from
a canister.
In January 2023, the juvenile court sustained the
supplemental petition and found that the previous disposition
was ineffective because of mother’s history of substance abuse
and her abuse of computer duster. In advance of the disposition
hearing, mother continued to participate in a drug treatment
program she had begun in November 2022. She drug tested
negative consistently. Mother’s weekly visits with minor were
also going well.
At the disposition hearing in February 2023, the juvenile
court removed minor from mother’s custody and ordered
monitored visits. Mother’s case plan included drug treatment
and drug testing, including specialty tests for nitrous oxide.
Between January and May 2023, mother completed a drug
program, participated in a Narcotics Anonymous (NA) program,
and consistently tested negative for substances including nitrous
oxide. Mother maintained weekly monitored visits with minor,
during which she cared for him appropriately.
III. Unmonitored Visits; Placement With Mother
In August 2023, the juvenile court ordered unmonitored
visitation, graduating to overnight visits after two weeks. The
visits generally went well. Mother consistently tested negative
for substances including nitrous oxide.
During a status review hearing in October 2023, the
juvenile court found that mother had made substantial progress,
4
terminated its suitable placement order, and ordered minor to be
placed with mother under the supervision of DCFS. The court
imposed conditions on mother’s custody, including negative drug
tests.
Mother continued to make progress through June 2024.
During a status review hearing in April 2024, the juvenile court
maintained its jurisdiction over minor and returned U.S. (minor’s
older sister) to mother’s custody, noting “mother’s great progress
in programs, her demonstration of protective capacity, and
insight into the issues that brought the case before the court.”
IV. Second Supplemental Petition
In July 2024, four-year-old U.S. left the family’s living area
looking for an adult because mother would not open the bathroom
door. Staff of the living facility found mother in the bathroom
with an aerosol can. Mother drug tested negative, but the test
administered was not capable of detecting nitrous oxide. Mother
admitted to using the canister, explaining that she felt
overwhelmed by work and the children.
Minor was placed with relative caregivers on August 1,
2024. DCFS filed a section 387 supplemental petition on August
5, 2024, based upon mother’s history of substance abuse and
current abuse of aerosols. The next day, the juvenile court
detained minor and U.S. from mother’s custody and ordered
monitored visits three times per week.
In September 2024, the juvenile court sustained the
supplemental petition. The court explained, “the incident that
happened with [minor] shortly after I returned the child to her
care, so this is her third attempt at trying to have the children
and she has proven over that apparently, our previous measures
and efforts in trying to have rehabilitation have not been
5
effective.” In October 2024, the court ordered minor removed
from mother and set a hearing to implement a permanent plan
under section 366.26. The court explained, “[i]t is not that you
can say I relapse and part of recovery and got overwhelmed and,
therefore, it’s okay. The court really has to consider at this
juncture the child’s protection.”
Mother filed a section 388 petition asking the juvenile court
to return minor to her or, alternatively, to order additional family
reunification services. Mother noted that she had enrolled in an
inpatient substance abuse program and was testing negative for
drugs. The court held an evidentiary hearing and denied the
petition. The court explained that mother had not shown
sufficiently changed circumstances—noting that mother was in a
“very structured setting” when she relapsed in 2024—and that
returning minor to her custody was not in the child’s best
interests.
V. Permanent Plan Hearing and Determination
The juvenile court held the contested section 366.26
hearing on June 11, 2025, and September 30, 2025. During the
June 11, 2025 hearing, the court found it would be detrimental to
minor to terminate parental rights and in minor’s best interests
to appoint his caretakers as legal guardians. The court continued
the remainder of the hearing so that a visitation schedule could
be arranged.
During the continued hearing on September 30, 2025,
mother requested that her visits with minor be unmonitored.
Minor’s counsel “strongly opposed” unmonitored visits, arguing
that mother had a long pattern of making progress only to
relapse when minor was in her care. DCFS objected to
unmonitored visits on the ground that mother had not provided
6
information of progress since the June hearing. The juvenile
court ruled that visits were to remain monitored based upon the
reasons stated by minor’s counsel and DCFS. The court’s order
provided for a mutually agreed monitor or for the parents to pay
for a monitor. The court noted that it planned to terminate
jurisdiction after the permanent living arrangement was
finalized.
VI. Appeal
Mother timely filed a notice of appeal from the order made
on September 30, 2025.
DISCUSSION
Mother’s sole contention on appeal is that the juvenile court
abused its discretion by issuing an order that required her visits
with minor be monitored.
I. Standard of Review
The juvenile court is afforded “great discretion in deciding
issues relating to parent-child visitation, which discretion we will
not disturb on appeal unless the juvenile court has exceeded the
bounds of reason.” (In re S.H. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1542,
1557–1558 (S.H.).) Visitation orders will not be reversed absent
a clear showing of “an arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd
determination.” (In re Brittany C. (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1343,
1356 (Brittany C.); see In re J.P. (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 1111,
1119.)
II. Applicable Law
If the juvenile court finds that termination of parental
rights is not in the best interest of the child, section 366.26
directs the court to order that appropriate persons become legal
guardians of the child and “make an order for visitation with the
7
parents . . . unless the court finds by a preponderance of the
evidence that the visitation would be detrimental to the physical
or emotional well-being of the child.” (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(4)(A),
(C).)
At all selection and implementation of permanent plan
proceedings, the court “shall consider the wishes of the child and
shall act in the best interests of the child.” (§ 366.26,
subd. (h)(1).) “Because juvenile dependency proceedings arise
when children are subject to or at risk of abuse or neglect, ‘[t]he
presumption of parental fitness that underlies custody law in the
family court just does not apply. . . . Rather the juvenile court,
which has been intimately involved in the protection of the child,
is best situated to make custody determinations based on the best
interests of the child without any preferences or presumptions.’
[Citations.]” (In re J.M. (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 95, 112.)
III. Analysis
Mother argues that the juvenile court abused its discretion
because it ignored mother’s progress and current circumstances
and issued its order based on mother’s history. In making this
argument, mother repeatedly asserts that the court was required
to find the visitation condition was “reasonably necessary” at the
time of the order. But mother identifies no authority—nor are we
aware of any—requiring a finding that monitoring be “reasonably
necessary.” Instead, the court has broad discretion to make
visitation determinations based on the best interests of the child.
(§ 366.26, subd. (h)(1); S.H., supra, 197 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1557–
1558.)
Under that standard, we find no abuse of the juvenile
court’s “great discretion” (S.H., supra, 197 Cal.App.4th at pp.
1557–1558). Mother has a long history of drug abuse that placed
8
minor at direct risk of serious harm on numerous occasions.
Although mother was sober for over one year leading up to the
permanent plan hearing, mother abused drugs for more than 10
years. She had been sober at least twice during the pendency of
this matter, including on one occasion for nearly a year, only to
relapse again. Further, she did not provide any information of
progress between the June 2025 and September 2025 hearing
dates.
Based upon the foregoing, the court could reasonably
remain concerned about minor’s safety and well-being if he were
to be alone with mother. (See In re Amber M. (2002) 103
Cal.App.4th 681, 686−687 [section 388 petition properly denied
where mother’s “substance abuse had begun more than 17 years
earlier and while she had been clean for 372 days, she had
previously relapsed twice during the course of this case, once
after more than 300 days of sobriety”]; see also In re C.J.W.
(2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1075, 1081 [court properly found that
three months of sobriety was insufficient to show changed
circumstances when compared with parents’ extensive history of
drug abuse]; In re Cliffton B. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 415, 423–424
[200 days of sobriety insufficient to reassure the juvenile court
that a relapse would not occur]; In re Kimberly F. (1997)
56 Cal.App.4th 519, 531, fn. 9 [“It is the nature of addiction that
one must be ‘clean’ for a much longer period than 120 days to
show real reform”].)
In addition, minor, by and through counsel, “strongly
opposed” unmonitored visitation. The trial court is entitled to
consider the minor’s views in making this decision. (See In re
Nicholas B. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 1126, 1138 [“visitation may not
be dictated solely by the child involved although the child’s
9
desires may be a dominant factor”].) Therefore, under the
totality of these circumstances, ordering mother’s visits with
minor remain monitored was not “arbitrary, capricious, or
patently absurd.” (Brittany C., supra, 191 Cal.App.4th at p.
1356.)
Mother argues that the juvenile court abused its discretion
because its determination was based on mother’s behavior while
she had custody of minor, not while she was visiting minor. This
is a distinction without a difference. Both custody and
unmonitored visits involve mother being alone with minor. The
court could have reasonable concerns about minor’s safety and
well-being in these circumstances based upon mother’s past
behavior.
Finally, mother argues that the juvenile court abused its
discretion by requiring monitoring because the lack of available
DCFS monitors had reduced her visitation with minor in the
past. The court’s order, however, allowed for monitoring by
someone mutually agreed upon or a monitor paid for by the
parents. Mother did not object to these requirements or make a
showing that they would limit her visitation in front of the court.
(See In re Daniel B. (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 663, 672 [explaining
that a reviewing court ordinarily will not consider a challenge
that could have been but was not made in the court below].) In
any event, the court retains jurisdiction over minor as a ward of
the court and may modify the order if problems arise with
visitation. (See § 366.4, subd. (a) [“Any minor for whom a
guardianship has been established resulting from the selection or
implementation of a permanency plan pursuant to Section
366.26 . . . is within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court”]; see
also In re Kenneth S., Jr. (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 1353, 1358
10
[when a legal guardianship is established, “if a problem develops,
the parent has access to the juvenile court”].)
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
GOORVITCH, J.
We concur:
CHAVEZ, Acting P. J.
RICHARDSON, J.
11