Filed 10/30/26 In re R.D. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
In re R.D. et al., Persons Coming Under
the Juvenile Court Law.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT
OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, E087908
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super.Ct.No. DPRI2500412)
v. OPINION
C.G.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Malvina K. Ovanezova,
Judge. Affirmed.
Mansi Thakkar, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Minh C. Tran, County Counsel, Jamila T. Purnell, Assistant County Counsel and
Catherine E. Rupp, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
INTRODUCTION
C.G. (mother) contends the juvenile court abused its discretion by ordering that
visitation with her children, R.D. and E.D. (the children), be supervised. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On September 30, 2025, the Riverside County Department of Public Social
Services (DPSS) filed a section 300 petition on behalf of the children. At the time, R.D.
was 12 years old and E.D. was 10 years old. The petition alleged that the children came
within section 300, subdivisions (b) (failure to protect) and (g) (no provision for support),
that R.D. also came within subdivision (d) (sexual abuse), and that E.D. came within
subdivision (j) (abuse of sibling).
Specifically, the petition alleged that, while in mother’s care and custody, R.D.
was sexually abused, in that mother’s boyfriend (the boyfriend) put his finger in her
vagina (the incident); mother admitted being made aware of the incident but failed to be
protective and allowed the boyfriend to remain in the home since she did not believe R.D.
was telling the truth; on September 26, 2025, mother was arrested for child endangerment
and dissuading a witness/victim, and she was currently incarcerated.
The petition also included the following allegations: mother continued to engage
in an abusive relationship with the boyfriend and minimized the impact of domestic
violence on the children; on July 8, 2025, she was issued an Emergency Protective Order
(EPO) and granted a temporary restraining order (TRO), but allowed the boyfriend to
return to the home and terminated the TRO on September 10, 2025; mother
2
inappropriately disciplined R.D; E.D.’s sibling had been abused or neglected and E.D.
was at risk of similar harm; and the whereabouts of the children’s father were unknown.
The social worker filed a detention report and stated that, on September 25, 2025,
the maternal grandmother (MGM) called law enforcement and reported that R.D. called
and told her that mother’s live-in boyfriend had touched her vagina while she was
sleeping. Law enforcement responded to the home and arrested the boyfriend. Mother
did not cooperate with the police and refused to let R.D. submit to a forensic interview.
The social worker further reported that the MGM had informed mother of the allegation,
which mother confirmed, but mother did not believe it and wanted time to “‘figure things
out.’”
On September 26, 2025, the social worker met with the police, who told her that
mother was uncooperative and downplayed the situation. Mother claimed the MGM
made up the allegation in order to sabotage her relationship with the boyfriend. One of
the police detectives said R.D. disclosed the incident and said it was isolated, she told
mother about it, and mother did not believe her. The detective said they arrested the
boyfriend for violating a restraining order related to a domestic violence incident that
occurred in July 2025. This detective also said he tried speaking with E.D., but E.D. said
mother told him not to talk to anyone.
The social worker met with mother, and mother said the household consisted of
her and the boyfriend, the children, and an unrelated roommate. Mother refused to
provide any information about the children’s father, but just said he had never been there
for the children. She said she typically worked from 3 p.m. to 9 p.m., three days a week,
3
and the children stayed home by themselves while she was at work. Mother denied any
domestic violence history and refused to talk about the TRO or domestic violence
incident that occurred in July 2025, except to say it was an isolated incident, and she
ended the TRO two weeks ago. She indicated that she and the boyfriend had a serious
conversation and agreed to work out their problems without becoming physical, and she
felt that was sufficient to lift the TRO.
As to the sexual abuse allegation, mother confirmed that R.D. told her on
September 20, 2025, that the boyfriend had touched her vagina. However, mother did not
think R.D. was being truthful, insisted that R.D. did not like the boyfriend, and believed
she might be making up the incident to separate them. The social worker reported that
mother was defensive and said she was the only one who really knew her daughter and
the types of lies she was capable of telling. Mother said she intended to confront her
boyfriend about the incident to ask him if the allegation was true, but she had not found
the right time.
Mother added she was at work on the day the incident allegedly occurred, and she
believed the boyfriend had been drinking that day and came home and went straight to
bed. She said he drank occasionally. Mother said R.D. was never left at home alone with
the boyfriend, since E.D. was always there. The social worker asked mother if she
planned on letting the boyfriend return home upon release from jail, and mother said yes.
As to a safety plan for the children, mother said she already agreed to let the children stay
with the maternal uncle, although he was not returning calls, and she did not know where
he lived. Mother said she would not consent to R.D. having a forensic interview. The
4
social worker noted that mother was defensive throughout the interview and often
contradicted herself. The social worker gave mother a packet of resources, including
services for domestic violence and mental health, but mother did not feel she needed
services.
The social worker reported that mother was subsequently arrested for child
endangerment and dissuading or intimidating a witness/victim, and the children were
taken into protective custody.
The social worker interviewed R.D., who reported that the boyfriend drank every
day and typically came home drunk. R.D. said mother and the boyfriend argued every
day, he had hit mother before, and he was the reason she (R.D.) did not feel safe at home.
The social worker tried to interview E.D., but he did not want to talk.
The court held a detention hearing on October 1, 2025, detained the children in
foster care, and ordered supervised visitation.
Jurisdiction/Disposition
On October 17, 2025, the social worker filed a jurisdiction/disposition report,
recommending that the children be declared dependents of the court and be removed
from the custody of mother and alleged father, W.A. (father). The social worker also
recommended that mother be provided with reunification services and have supervised
visitation with the children.
The social worker reported that she met with R.D. on October 9, 2025, and R.D.
stated she was laying on mother’s bed when the boyfriend told the children to clean the
kitchen. When E.D. left to get a broom, the boyfriend came over to the bed and touched
5
her vagina. She told him to stop because she did not like it, and he said, “So what.” R.D
cried and told her brother what happened, and she told mother when she came home from
work. R.D. said mother got mad, and she and the boyfriend “went to bed like normal that
day.” R.D. also reported that the boyfriend would come home drunk every day and hit
mother, and mother did nothing about it. R.D. said mother always prioritized the
boyfriend and did not pay attention to her.
The social worker also interviewed E.D. on October 9, 2025. He confirmed that
R.D. told him the boyfriend touched her vagina.
When asked, the children said they wanted to live with mother, as they had no
other family members residing in the United States. However, they both described their
living situation as stressful and unsafe and said they often felt hopeless because mother
refused to end her relationship with the boyfriend, despite repeated pleas to do so. They
both disliked and feared him and believed he would eventually become violent with
them. The social worker opined that the children had endured significant emotional
trauma during the period in which mother remained with the boyfriend and allowed him
access to them.
The social worker further reported that she received links to review the children’s
forensic interviews, which were conducted by another interviewer. During R.D.’s
interview, she confirmed that the boyfriend touched her inappropriately in the vaginal
area. When she told him to stop, he acted as if what he was doing was normal. R.D. said
she felt “dirty, uncomfortable, and scared.” She also reported that the boyfriend was not
intoxicated during the incident. R.D. said she told mother what happened when she came
6
home from work, but mother did not appear to confront the boyfriend, and the night
continued on as normal. R.D. reported that mother told her to stay quiet and not discuss
the domestic violence in the home or the sexual abuse incident.
During E.D.’s interview, he said the boyfriend was jealous, controlling, frequently
intoxicated, and hit mother regularly. He reported that, after the incident occurred, E.D.
noticed R.D. crying and asked what was wrong, and she told him about the incident.
E.D. reported that mother was aware of what happened and told him she could not do
anything since she was afraid the boyfriend would become violent and harm them.
The social worker also reported that mother was interviewed again on October 8,
2025. Mother confirmed that R.D. told her the boyfriend touched her vagina, but this
time mother said she believed R.D. Mother said she wanted to talk to the boyfriend about
the incident, but this time she said she did not do so because she was afraid he would hurt
her or the children, as he had threatened to kill her or hurt the children before. She added
that she was arrested and had her children taken away from her because she made the
mistake of not speaking up against the boyfriend since she was afraid. Mother said she
regretted not calling the police and said the boyfriend was drunk “that Friday” and had hit
her.
Mother explained that she stayed in an abusive relationship with the boyfriend
because he said he was going to change and convinced her to end the TRO. When she
noticed he was not changing, she asked him to leave, but he refused. Mother said she
regretted staying with him and ending the TRO. She also reported that father was in
Guatemala but did not know his exact whereabouts.
7
Further, the social worker reported that mother was born in Guatemala, and during
her childhood, she was disciplined verbally; mother denied any history of physical or
sexual abuse and denied witnessing domestic violence or substance abuse.
The social worker reported that mother “now presents as remorseful for not fleeing
the relationship out of fear for her own safety, rather than prioritizing the safety of her
children.” Mother acknowledged she placed herself and the children in unsafe situations
and admitted she could have left the relationship with the boyfriend or contacted law
enforcement earlier to prevent further harm. The social worker reported that mother was
motivated to participate in services, but opined that, although mother expressed regret
and showed some remorse, there was still concern about her true understanding of the
abuse, neglect, and emotional trauma her actions had on the children. The social worker
stated that mother “does not take full accountability and places much blame on the
system, for not protecting her and the children.” She further reported that mother had a
significant history of domestic violence and demonstrated behavioral patterns of a victim,
“including fear, dependency, and self-blame,” which made the social worker concerned
for her protective ability over the children. The social worker concluded that mother
would benefit from services to strengthen her ability to protect the children.
On October 22, 2025, the court held a jurisdiction/disposition hearing. DPSS filed
an amended petition that day and requested a continuance. The court ordered the
amended petition filed and continued the matter. The amended petition deleted the
allegation that mother was currently incarcerated and amended the allegation regarding
father.
8
On December 1, 2025, the social worker filed an addendum report stating that
mother was visiting consistently with the children once a week and was attentive.
Further, she had been fully cooperative with DPSS and participated in all services
requested of her. The social worker noted mother showed a strong motivation to reunify
and made a “meaningful effort and early progress.” Mother appeared remorseful for not
leaving the abusive relationship sooner and expressed deep regret for her choices.
However, the social worker noted it was not long ago that mother placed significant
blame on the system for failing to protect her and the children. Thus, the social worker
remained concerned about her understanding of the abuse, neglect, and emotional trauma
her actions had on the children and the potential for the perpetrator to resume contact
with her.
The social worker filed a second amended petition on January 21, 2026, and
amended an allegation with regard to father, since he had been located and contacted.
The amended petition alleged that father failed to maintain contact and had not made
himself available to provide support to the children. The social worker changed the
recommendation to have the court provide him with reunification services, even though
he expressed no interest in having custody of the children. The social worker attached a
case plan, which included a schedule for supervised visitation. She further stated that
mother and father needed to participate in all recommended services and actively practice
at least three learned skills for four to six weeks or longer, and DPSS could then
reevaluate the appropriateness of progressing to unsupervised visits and overnight visits.
9
After several continuances, the court held a jurisdiction/disposition hearing on
January 21, 2026. The court appointed father counsel and elevated his status from
alleged to presumed father. It then set the matter for contest, at father’s counsel’s
request.
The court held a contested jurisdiction/disposition hearing on February 6, 2026.
Mother appeared, represented by counsel. DPSS recommended that the court sustain the
second amended petition, order reunification services for mother and father, and asked
that mother’s visits continue to be supervised with “authorization to liberalize up to and
including family maintenance with continued case-plan compliance.” Mother’s counsel
asserted that mother had changed her attitude, was involved in her parenting, and visits
were going extremely well. He then asked the court to “allow liberalization of visiting to
include unsupervised and overnights.”
After hearing arguments from counsel, the court sustained the second amended
petition, declared the children dependents, removed them from the custody of mother and
father, and ordered them to participate in reunification services. The court acknowledged
mother’s progress in her program and her contact with the children and was hopeful she
would complete her case plan. The court adopted the social worker’s remaining
recommendations and authorized the liberalization of visitation “up to and including
family maintenance.”
10
DISCUSSION
The Court Properly Exercised its Discretion in Ordering Supervised Visitation
Mother contends the court abused its discretion by continuing visitation as
supervised, despite evidence that she consistently visited the children, fully cooperated
with DPSS, and demonstrated meaningful insight and remorse. She asserts there was no
evidence that she acted inappropriately during visits or that unsupervised visits would
place the children at risk of harm and adds that the children missed her and looked
forward to visits. We conclude there was no abuse of discretion.
A. Standard of Review
The juvenile court has broad discretion in fashioning visitation orders, and the
court's determination will not be disturbed on review absent a clear abuse of discretion.
(In re Robert L. (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 1057, 1067 (Robert L.).) In fashioning
a visitation order, the juvenile court should balance the interests of the parent and the
child and impose any conditions on visitation consistent with the child’s best interest
under the particular circumstances of the case. (In re Shawna M. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th
1686, 1690.) Visitation orders must provide for “flexibility in response to the changing
needs of the child and to dynamic family circumstances.” (In re S.H. (2003) 111
Cal.App.4th 310, 317.) ‘“The reviewing court must consider all the evidence, draw all
reasonable inferences, and resolve all evidentiary conflicts, in a light most favorable to
the trial court’s ruling.”’ (Robert L., supra, 21 Cal.App.4th at p. 1067.)
11
B. Mother Raised the Issue of Unsupervised Visitation
DPSS initially contends that mother waived the issue of unsupervised visitation on
appeal for failing to object or raise it before the juvenile court. The record shows that,
while mother did not object to the social worker’s recommendation that the court
continue visitation as supervised, she did address the issue of unsupervised visits. Her
counsel asserted that visits were going extremely well and asked the court “to allow
liberalization of visiting to include unsupervised and overnights.” Since mother asked for
unsupervised visits, she properly raised the issue, giving the juvenile court the
opportunity to consider her request for unsupervised visitation. We conclude that mother
did not waive the issue on appeal.
The court acted within its discretion in ordering supervised visitation to continue.
As detailed above, the family came to the attention of DPSS because R.D. was sexually
abused by the boyfriend while in mother’s care and custody, and mother admittedly was
informed about the incident but failed to protect the children. When R.D. told her what
happened, mother did not believe her. Mother was uncooperative with the police and
downplayed the situation, claiming the MGM made up the allegation in order to sabotage
her relationship with the boyfriend. Mother also refused to let R.D. do a forensic
interview and told E.D. not to talk to anyone. She later confirmed with the social worker
that R.D. told her about the incident right away but stated that R.D. was lying about it in
order to separate her from the boyfriend, since R.D. did not like him. Mother added that
only she knew the lies that R.D. was capable of making up and said she intended to
confront the boyfriend about the incident but had not found the right time. However, we
12
note that mother subsequently said she did not confront the boyfriend because she was
afraid he would hurt her or the children, as he had threatened to kill her or hurt the
children before. Mother also said the boyfriend only drank occasionally and said she
would allow him to return home when he was released from jail.
In contrast, R.D. informed the social worker that the boyfriend drank every day
and would come home drunk and hit mother. E.D. confirmed that the boyfriend hit
mother regularly. Mother told R.D. not to discuss the domestic violence in the home or
the sexual abuse incident with anyone and told E.D. not to talk to anyone; thus, she
appeared to be protecting the boyfriend. Further, the children said mother refused to end
her relationship with him, despite repeated pleas for her to do so. They both feared him
and believed he would become physically violent toward them, and they described their
living situation at home as stressful and unsafe.
In other words, although the children were afraid of the boyfriend, and mother
herself was afraid he could hurt them, she stayed in the relationship and failed to
prioritize or protect her children. Mother asserts that the circumstances surrounding the
incident must be viewed within the context of her being a domestic abuse and sexual
assault victim. However, as the social worker noted, mother contradicted herself, as she
denied any history of abuse growing up and denied any domestic violence with father. In
any event, her alleged status as a victim should have provided all the more reason for her
to be protective of the children and to cooperate with the police.
Moreover, although mother eventually showed some remorse, the social worker
was properly concerned about her true understanding of the abuse, neglect, and emotional
13
trauma her actions had on the children. Right before the contested hearing, the social
worker observed that mother started making meaningful efforts and showed a desire to
make changes but noted that it was not long ago that she had “placed significant blame on
the system for failing to protect her and the children.” In addition, the social worker was
concerned about the potential for the boyfriend to resume contact with mother and was
unsure of how mother would respond. Notably, mother did say she would allow him to
return home after he was released from jail.
Accordingly, the social worker wanted to see mother continue engaging in
services and demonstrate sustained progress and benefit from those services. The social
worker thus recommended supervised visitation to observe mother’s changes, with the
objective of later reevaluating the appropriateness of progressing to unsupervised visits
and overnight visits.
We further point out that, at the contested hearing, DPSS asked for mother’s visits
to continue to be supervised with “authorization to liberalize up to and including family
maintenance with continued case-plan compliance.” Mother’s counsel similarly asked
for the court to “allow liberalization of visiting to include unsupervised and overnights.”
The court adopted the social worker’s recommendation and authorized the liberalization
of visitation “up to and including family maintenance.” In other words, the court’s order
granted mother’s request.
We conclude the juvenile court acted within its discretion in ordering supervised
visitation giving DPSS the authority to significantly liberalize the visits with continued
case compliance, due to concerns about mother’s protection and care of the children.
14
This authority to modify the visitation included liberalization of visitation “up to and
including family maintenance,” as recommended by the social worker, which necessarily
includes unsupervised and overnight visits, as mother requested. We see no abuse of
discretion.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
FIELDS
J.
We concur:
McKINSTER
Acting P. J.
CODRINGTON
J.
15