Filed 7/16/26 In re Kendra S. CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 THREE
In re KENDRA S., a Person Coming
Under the Juvenile Court Law.
ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL
SERVICES AGENCY,
G066238
Plaintiff and Respondent;
(Super. Ct. No. 19DP0765A)
S.R.,
OPINION
Defendant and Respondent,
v.
O.S.,
Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County,
June Jee An, Judge. Affirmed.
Christopher Blake, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
Leon J. Page, County Counsel, Debbie Torrez and Chloe R.
Maksoudian, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Diana W. Prince, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Respondent.
No appearance for the Minor.
* * *
At the termination of this dependency case involving Kendra S.,
the juvenile court issued exit orders awarding sole physical custody to her
father (Father), and joint legal custody to Father and Kendra’s mother
(Mother). Father challenges this order on appeal, arguing the court should
have granted him sole legal custody. We find no abuse of discretion. The
court’s order was reasonable given evidence that Mother was still involved in
Kendra’s life, was attending medical appointments and meetings at school,
and that Father and Mother had been able to reach agreements concerning
Kendra’s medical care and education. Thus, the court’s custody order is
affirmed.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
I.
PRIOR DEPENDENCY PROCEEDING
Kendra S. is currently seven years old. Her parents, Mother and
Father, were never married and have had a volatile relationship, including
an extensive history of domestic violence. They were previously involved in a
dependency proceeding involving Kendra, which terminated in May 2021. At
the end of that proceeding, full physical custody of Kendra was awarded to
Father, and joint legal custody was awarded to Mother and Father. Mother
was authorized to have supervised visitation.
II.
THE CURRENT DEPENDENCY PROCEEDING
A. Dependency Initiated
2
On December 3, 2024, the Orange County Social Services Agency
(SSA) filed a protective custody warrant to remove Kendra from Father’s
physical custody. Kendra was removed from Father’s home the next day and
placed with her paternal grandparents.
SSA filed a dependency petition (petition) against Mother and
Father under Welfare & Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b)(1) and
(c). Generally, the petition alleged that (1) Father engaged in inappropriate
rough play with Kendra, (2) the parents’ volatile relationship and continued
domestic violence put Kendra at risk of physical or emotional injury, (3) both
parents could have unresolved mental health issues, (4) both parents had a
history of substance abuse, (5) Father had a criminal history for narcotics,
battery, and domestic violence, and (6) Kendra was a previous dependent of
the juvenile court.
A jurisdiction hearing was held on December 26, 2024. Father
submitted on the petition, while Mother pleaded no contest. The juvenile
court found the petition’s allegations true by a preponderance of the evidence.
The court released Kendra to Father’s care under various protective orders,
including that the parents only speak to each other using TalkingParents.1
At the disposition hearing on February 26, 2025, Kendra was
found to be a dependent of the juvenile court. The court also found that it was
in Kendra’s best interest to remain in Father’s physical custody with
visitation to Mother. It set a six-month review hearing to check each parent’s
progress.
1 “TalkingParents is a court-mandated, online coparenting
communication tool that records the time messages are sent and read,
prevents messages from being altered or deleted, and is admissible in court.”
(K.L. v. R.H. (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 965, 974.)
3
B. SSA’s Reports
SSA’s report dated August 19, 2025, stated that Father had
completed his case plan services and had been testing negative for drugs. He
appeared to have learned from his services and was providing Kendra with a
safe environment.
As to Mother, SSA’s report found she had made “moderate”
progress on her case plan.2 She was participating in domestic violence
therapy and was doing well in her outpatient substance abuse program. But
Mother tested positive for alcohol 13 times since the end of April 2025. She
also tested positive for cocaine and methamphetamine about four times.
Mother denied using drugs and claimed the positive tests resulted from
medication.
As to visitation, the report noted that Mother was scheduled to
have two three-hour supervised visits with Kendra a week. Generally,
Kendra enjoyed her visits with Mother and wanted to spend more time with
Mother and Kendra’s younger brother (Mother’s son from a different
relationship). However, Kendra expressed to SSA several times that she
preferred that visits remain supervised. Among other things, she did not like
that Mother’s home was not clean and that Kendra’s brother was “‘bad’
sometimes” and would hit her. There were also reports that staff at the
visitation center had advised Mother several times to monitor Kendra’s
brother because he was “out-of-control” and would disrupt other visitors.
SSA’s report also reflected that Mother canceled or was a “‘no show’” at about
seven visits from April to August 2025.
2 We focus on the facts pertinent to Mother since this appeal concerns
her parental rights.
4
Addendum reports filed in September 2025 showed that Mother
tested negative for drugs from late August through September except for one
positive test for cocaine.
The addendum reports also reflected that Father stated that
visits between Kendra and Mother “were going okay.” Father said that
Kendra enjoyed her visits with Mother. He believed it was important for
Mother to be involved in Kendra’s life, but he did not feel comfortable with
allowing Mother unsupervised visitation.
C. Testimony at the Six-Month Review Hearing
At the six-month review hearing, Father requested full physical
and legal custody. Several witnesses were called to testify.
Kendra testified that she saw Mother for visitation twice a week.
Kendra wanted visits with Mother to continue but preferred that they remain
supervised because her brother was too aggressive at times. She would be
okay with unsupervised visits with Mother if her brother was not there.
Kendra further testified that Father told her what to say to social workers
“[a] lot.” In particular, Father told her to tell social workers that she wanted
supervised visits.
Social worker Heather Choyce recommended closing the
dependency case and granting Father sole legal and physical custody. Choyce
expressed concerns over Mother’s sobriety, Mother’s inability to control
Kendra’s brother, and Kendra’s statements that she did not want
unsupervised visits with Mother. Choyce believed Father should have sole
legal custody because he had “more involvement” in Kendra’s medical care
and schooling. She recognized that Mother had “participated in some school
activities.” But “due to [Mother] and [Father] both having restraining orders
and lack of communication, [she had not] seen [Mother] involved in any other
5
appointments or . . . any other services outside of school.” Choyce clarified
that she believed Mother had the capacity to make decisions concerning
Kendra’s health and education. But Choyce was worried about Mother’s
availability due to “her inconsistency with visits or being able to get Kendra.”
Mother admitted to previously using marijuana but claimed that
she had stopped because it made her paranoid and anxious. She also
admitted to drinking but claimed she did not have any issues with alcohol.
Mother claimed that she missed visits with Kendra due to issues finding
childcare for Kendra’s brother.
Mother testified that she always went to Kendra’s medical
appointments and recounted an appointment she had gone to last year to
remove a wart from Kendra. Both Mother and Father had agreed on this
treatment. Mother acknowledged that she and Father once had a major
disagreement about Kendra’s dental care. Father wanted to pursue a more
aggressive treatment while Mother preferred a more conservative approach.
Mother ultimately went along with Father’s preferred treatment. Mother did
not state when this disagreement occurred, but she claimed that healthcare
decisions had “been smooth” since then.
Mother also stated that Father did not tell her what schools
Kendra would attend until Kendra was already enrolled. Still, she agreed
with Father as to the choice of Kendra’s current school. Mother went to
Kendra’s school appointments and discussed a meeting she had with
Kendra’s teacher the prior month. Mother also stated she signed up for
notifications from the school so she could be informed of Kendra’s activities
each day.
Finally, Mother stated that she would like to put her differences
with Father aside to make decisions for Kendra’s best interest. She stated,
6
“[i]t’s not about me anymore . . . . [i]t’s about Kendra, and I’m willing to wave
my white flag at this point. You got to see the brilliance she displayed in
court.”
Father stated that he had been Kendra’s primary caretaker for
nearly all her life. Mother had “a lot of domestic violence and a lot of issues
where [she] would show that she [could not] make legal decisions when [he]
needed it.” He further stated that Mother missed visits and either ignored his
communications on TalkingParents or responded combatively.
Father elaborated on the dental issue Mother had raised during
her testimony. He explained that Mother initially stopped the dental
procedure from being performed by “threaten[ing] the [dentists] and tell[ing]
them that she ha[d] 50/50 custody, and they [could not] perform anything on
Kendra until she approve[d] it.” Father conceded, however, that aside from
the dental issues, there had not been any “other medical issues that [Mother]
ha[d] obstructed [him] on.”
Father also claimed that Mother missed school meetings. He
testified that Mother was supposed to attend a school meeting the prior
month. He was going to attend in-person and have her on speaker phone
using TalkingParents, but Mother missed the meeting. Father conceded,
though, that Mother made her own appointment with the school later in the
week. Father also vaguely stated that Mother made it difficult to make
decisions to “[j]ust sign[] [Kendra] up for . . . extra events or after-school
events.” He was concerned that Mother would use joint legal custody “as an
excuse to violate the restraining order that [they] currently have.”
Father summarized his objection to joint legal custody by
explaining that such an arrangement would (1) “delay the process if there
was an immediate decision needed,” and (2) create arguments between
7
Mother and Father that would be harmful to Kendra’s emotional
development.
Kendra’s stepmother (Father’s wife) testified that Mother had
missed dental and medical appointments due to conflict or scheduling issues.3
She did not give any specific examples of missed appointments or provide an
estimate of how many appointments were missed. Kendra’s stepmother also
did not believe that Mother was involved in or interested in Kendra’s
schooling. Rather, she believed Mother wanted to have joint legal custody of
Kendra to control Father.
D. The Juvenile Court’s Findings
After the presentation of evidence, the juvenile court terminated
dependency proceedings. However, it explained that it “did not find any of the
parents’ testimony or [Kendra’s stepmother’s] testimony persuasive at all. It
was all very, very self-serving. So [it took] all of [their] testimony with a grain
of salt. [¶] The only testimony that [the court] found truly helpful was
Kendra’s and the social worker, Ms. Choyce[].” The court then issued exit
orders awarding joint legal custody of Kendra to both Mother and Father and
full physical custody to Father (the custody order). Mother would have six
hours of weekly supervised visitation.
As to legal custody, the juvenile court explained that it found no
“reason to remove [M]other’s decision-making power regarding any medical
or educational decisions.” The court noted that Mother had remained
3 Father lives in Irvine while Mother lives in Long Beach. Father’s
opening brief concedes that “most, if not all of Kendra’s medical providers live
in Irvine. The two locations are, depending on traffic, at least one-half hour
apart and, during rush hours, it could take more than an hour to traverse the
distance between [Father’s] home and [Mother’s] home.” Kendra also attends
school in Irvine.
8
involved in Kendra’s life. While Mother lived in Los Angeles County, she had
not missed medical or educational appointments for Kendra and attended
appointments over the phone when she could not attend in person. Further,
the one example given by both parties about their medical disagreement
ended with Father’s preference being used.
While there was conflict between Mother and Father, the juvenile
court did “not believe that the solution to that [was] to remove [Mother’s]
decision-making power.” Likewise, it did “not believe that parents should
have their legal custody removed unless . . . there is some impediment to
them making those decisions on behalf of the minor.”
Father appeals the portion of the custody order granting the
parents joint legal custody. He claims the juvenile court should have granted
him sole legal custody. We find no error.
DISCUSSION
“[T]he juvenile court has broad discretion to make custody orders
when it terminates jurisdiction in a dependency case.” (In re Nicholas H.
(2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 251, 265, fn. 4.) Such orders are reviewed for abuse of
discretion. (Bridget A. v. Superior Court (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 285, 300.)
“An abuse of discretion is only demonstrated when no reasonable judge could
have made the challenged order.” (In re Marriage of Barth (2012) 210
Cal.App.4th 363, 374.)
Mother and Father had joint legal custody prior to the start of
this dependency case. Based on the above evidence, the juvenile court could
reasonably conclude there was no reason to modify this custody arrangement.
There was evidence that Mother was involved in Kendra’s life, including
attending medical appointments and school meetings. While the parties did
not get along, the record indicated they were still able to make decisions
9
about Kendra’s well-being. Indeed, the testimony only showed one major
conflict over a medical decision, which was resolved in favor of Father’s
preference. Choyce likewise testified that she believed Mother had the
capacity to make decisions concerning Kendra’s health and education. Given
this evidence, the court reasonably chose to maintain joint legal custody.
Father appears to argue that the juvenile court erred in weighing
evidence. He contends that Mother’s testimony was full of lies and half-
truths, while he “presented himself as being reasonable and willing to
cooperate.” He also highlights evidence in the record supporting his claim for
sole legal custody, such as Mother’s positive drug and alcohol tests.
Father misunderstands our role on appeal. “In determining
whether there has been . . . an abuse [of discretion], we cannot reweigh
evidence or pass upon witness credibility. The trial court is the sole arbiter of
such conflicts. Our role is to interpret the facts and to make all reasonable
inferences in support of the order issued.” (Dodge, Warren & Peters Ins.
Services, Inc. v. Riley (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 1414, 1420.) Put differently, it is
immaterial that the lower court could have reached a different result had it
weighed the evidence differently. As set forth above, the custody order was
reasonable given the evidence presented.
We are also unpersuaded by Father’s citations to In re M.R.
(2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 886, and In re C.W. (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 835. The
conduct of the parents that lost legal custody in those cases was far more
extreme than Mother’s conduct here.
In In re M.R., supra, 7 Cal.App.5th at pages 902, 906, the
appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision awarding sole legal custody
to the father. The record showed the mother “suffer[ed] from drug addiction;
had abandoned the children with the maternal grandmother and just ‘[taken]
10
off’; had engaged in domestic violence with her live-in boyfriend; and had
failed to protect the children from physical violence at the hands of her live-in
boyfriend.” (Id. at p. 902.) Here, Mother has not abandoned Kendra, nor is
there any evidence that she has failed to protect Kendra from physical
violence. Further, while Mother tested positive for drugs, we are not aware of
any statement in the record that Mother has a drug addiction.
We are unsure why Father believes In re C.W., supra, 33
Cal.App.5th at pages 841–842, has any bearing here. In that case, the father
had been previously arrested for aggravated rape and accused of touching a
four-year old’s vagina and raping two other minors. There was no evidence
that he had “ever received services or treatment of any kind to address his
sexually inappropriate behavior toward children, or other evidence
demonstrating [the father’s] past history no longer posed a risk to his son.”
(Id. at p. 863.) Further, the evidence showed that after the child began living
with the father, he was expelled “from school for downloading pornography,
[began] engaging in sexual behavior at home that was so troubling his
stepmother had wanted a restraining order, and . . . sexually molest[ed] his
younger half-sister.” (Id. at pp. 863–864.) Based on these facts, the appellate
court reversed the lower court’s order granting father sole legally custody.
(Id. at pp. 837–838.)
Finally, Father’s reply brief raises a new argument that the
juvenile court applied the wrong legal standard. His argument centers on the
court’s statement that it did “not believe that parents should have their legal
custody removed unless . . . there is some impediment to them making those
decisions on behalf of the minor.” Father asserts that the “common sense
understanding of the term [impediment] would mean that [Mother] would be
suffering from some mental (or physical) impairment that would prevent her
11
from making decisions in the best interest of the child.” He then contends
that “[t]o the extent . . . that the trial court believed that it could deprive
[Mother] of joint legal custody only if there was proof of some mental/physical
impairment, it was wrong and that establishes an abuse of discretion as
well.”
Father “has failed to explain why [he] did not . . . make this
argument in [his] opening brief. We do not consider arguments made for the
first time in a reply brief, primarily because it denies [Mother] the
opportunity to counter the argument.” (See LAOSD Asbestos Cases (2026) 118
Cal.App.5th 1041, 1060.)
Besides, Father’s argument is based on a misinterpretation. He
mistakenly infers that the juvenile court used “impediment” to refer to a
mental or physical impairment. But nothing in the record supports this
interpretation. The court made the above statement while explaining that
Mother and Father had been able to agree on most decisions affecting Kendra
despite their personal differences. The court was stating that parents should
not lose legal custody unless they are obstructing decision making. (See
Dictionary.com (2026) <https://www.dictionary.com/browse/impediment> [as
of July 14, 2026], archived at https://perma.cc/S7VN-CL8E [defining
“impediment” to mean an “obstruction; hindrance; obstacle”].) It was not
suggesting that Mother could only lose legal custody if she had a mental or
physical impediment.4
4 Several of Father’s arguments are based on conjecture. For example,
he speculates that Mother “appears to [sic] an example of that horrific parent
who hates the ‘ex’ more than she loves the child. That kind of person should
not have any say so in the medical and educational needs of the child.” He
also hypothesizes that some of Mother’s actions are “perhaps . . . her way of
12
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court’s custody order is affirmed.
MOORE, J.
WE CONCUR:
MOTOIKE, P. J.
DELANEY, J.
expressing guilt for putting drugs above her daughter?” We will not address
these speculative arguments.
13