Filed 10/16/26 In re T.A. CA1/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
In re T.A. et al., Persons Coming
Under the Juvenile Court Law.
ALAMEDA COUNTY SOCIAL
SERVICES AGENCY,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. A173247
T.A., Sr.,
(Alameda County Super. Ct.
Defendant and Appellant. Nos. JD-036983, JD-036985)
Father, T.A., Sr., appeals from the juvenile court’s April 16, 2025 order
terminating his family reunification services and disallowing visitation
between father and minor, T.A., Jr. (born in 2013), arguing insufficient
evidence supports the court’s finding that visitation would be detrimental to
minor.1 Father asserts the April 2025 detriment order issued by the “new
1 The order challenged on appeal also ordered mother’s reunification
with minor and his younger sister, granted mother family maintenance
services, and lifted father’s detriment finding as to minor’s sister, permitting
father’s visitation with her. Mother is not a party to this appeal, and father
does not challenge any orders relating to minor’s sister, so we limit our
background discussion to the information relevant to the detriment finding
precluding father’s visitation with minor.
1
judge” maintaining the “temporary detriment finding” made on July 22, 2024,
without evidentiary hearing was “misplaced” and requests remand “for
reconsideration based on the family’s current circumstances.” But because
substantial evidence supports the April 2025 order, including evidence of
physical harm to minor, minor’s reluctance to visit father, and father’s failure
to progress in his case plan, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
Father and mother were previously in a romantic relationship and have
two children in common: minor and minor’s younger sister. Mother also had
another older son from a prior relationship, who had lived with minor and
minor’s sister prior to the initiation of these dependency proceedings.
Father’s and mother’s relationship involved domestic violence and was
marked by “copious amounts of CPS referrals and police reports against one
another.” In January 2022, a family court granted mother a two-year
domestic violence restraining order protecting her and her three children
from father but permitted supervised visitation. At the time of the referral
underlying this appeal, an “amended” version of the family law restraining
order was in effect that permitted father supervised visitation with minor
and his sister once per week for two hours. In October 2023, mother and
minor were also protected under a three-year criminal protective order
directing father have no-contact and stay at least 100 yards away from
mother’s residence but permitting peaceful contact for “the safe exchange of
children and court-ordered visitation” under the existing family law
restraining order.
I. Referral and Investigation
On December 4, 2023, the Alameda County Social Services Agency
(Agency) received a referral from the Berkeley Police Department after a
2
bullet was shot through the floor of mother’s apartment into an apartment
below. Mother’s boyfriend had been watching minor’s sister at the time of the
incident; mother, minor, and minor’s half-brother were not home. When
police entered the apartment, they discovered firearms and ammunition
“within reach of the children.” The home had “dog feces and urine
throughout the home, rotting/rancid food left out, and partially empty alcohol
bottles scattered around.” Mother was arrested for child endangerment,
multiple weapons charges, and resisting arrest, and the Agency placed minor,
sister, and half brother into protective custody.2
On December 6, mother was interviewed by the Agency in jail and told
the social worker that father should not be considered as a placement
because he is violent and had threatened her by pointing a gun at her in front
of the children, she had a restraining order in place due to his history of
stalking, and he sleeps in a van and requires minor to use a bucket to go to
the bathroom.
On December 12, the Agency filed a petition against mother and father
alleging minor and his two siblings fell within the jurisdiction of the juvenile
court under Welfare and Institutions Code3 section 300, subdivisions (b)(1)
and (g). Specifically, the petition alleged the children were at “substantial
risk of physical harm,” mother was “unable to provide adequate and safe
shelter for the minors,” and father “has a history of violence in the presence
of the children.” The petition noted there was “a current restraining order
that protects the mother and minors” from father and his whereabouts, his
2 Criminal charges were not filed against mother, and she was later
released from custody.
3 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and
Institutions Code.
3
circumstances, and ability to care for minor and his sister was described as
“unknown.” Minor and his sister were detained from the care of father and
mother after hearing on December 13, and the court ordered no visitation for
father until further order of the court.4
On January 2, 2024, having learned in interviews with minor and his
half brother that father had harmed minor approximately “a year” prior, the
Agency filed a first amended petition with an additional allegation that
father “used his hands to hit the minor . . . on his face resulting in a black
eye” and “used his hands to hit [minor’s half brother] on his chest and torso
resulting in bruises.”
II. Jurisdiction and Disposition
The Agency’s January 30, 2024 jurisdiction/disposition report
recommended the juvenile court declare minor and his sister dependents and
that father and mother receive family reunification services. The report
represented that father has “a history of domestic violence and with violating
restraining orders,” and there was a restraining order in place arising from
his “history of violence in the presence of the children.” The report stated
that father hit minor “on the face resulting in black eyes” and minor’s half
brother, “resulting in bruises on his torso and chest.” It concluded minor was
“at risk for serious harm [if] the father . . . does not stop hitting the children.”
The report also represented that several parties interviewed indicated they
believed father and paternal grandmother had previously “coached” minor
and his sister to make allegations of abuse against mother and paternal
grandfather.
4 The Agency recommended the older half-brother be detained from
mother, and he was placed in the care of his biological father. As the half
brother’s further proceedings are not relevant to this appeal, we do not
discuss them.
4
Mother had also told the worker she was fearful of father because he
was violent and had “pointed a gun at her in the past”; she was very afraid of
him” and “experience[ed] domestic violence from him for over 9 years.”
Mother claimed she “struggled to maintain the household . . . because [father]
was stalking her and would come to the house or she would see him in the
street.”
The report also detailed numerous communications between the worker
and father in which father denied abusing the children, claimed mother was
the abuser, communicated he did not believe he had done anything wrong
because he was a “ ‘perfect father,’ ” and became “irate” with the worker.
The report summarized a December 21 interview with minor in which
he told the worker he felt “ ‘kinda’ ” safe with father. But when asked if he
wanted to see father, minor replied, “ ‘I don’t want to stay with him in the
van,’ ” where he would have to “ ‘pee into a bucket.’ ” In a December 29
interview, minor stated it would be “fine” to see his father and again stated
he felt “ ‘kinda’ ” safe around him. Minor reported that father “ ‘hit me in the
eye and made my eye bruise,’ ” estimating, “it might have been a year ago.”
The jurisdiction and disposition report also listed father’s lengthy
criminal history, including alleged physical abuse of mother and restraining
order violations.
Father’s recommended case plan included attending domestic violence
classes and demonstrating father will not hurt or harass intimate partners,
as well as attending parenting classes and demonstrating father has
“developmentally appropriate strategies for disciplining his children.”
The Agency’s March 4, 2024 addendum report detailed harassing and
threatening text messages to minor’s caregiver from father in late December
5
2023 and from father’s cousin in January 2024.5 The worker called father to
tell him that he “cannot have other people contact the caregiver,” but father
hung up the phone. When the worker texted father, father denied the
contact, accused mother of violating the visitation orders, and complained of
mother’s alleged history of abuse.
At the combined contested jurisdiction/disposition hearing held on
March 4 and 5, 2024, the juvenile court admitted the jurisdiction/disposition
report into evidence, found father had made no progress in “alleviating or
mitigating the causes necessitating placement,” and adjudged minor and his
sister as dependents.6 The juvenile court also ordered therapeutic visitation
between father and minor’s sister but did not order visitation for minor.
III. Status Review Hearings
In March 2024, father filed an ex parte request with the juvenile court
requesting visitation because, he represented, the existing criminal protective
order had been modified to permit “ ‘peaceful contact with the protected
persons . . . only for the safe exchange of children and court ordered
visitation,’ ” as stated in any court order issued thereafter. In April 2024,
father filed a request for full custody or in-person visits, asserting the
allegations that he punched minor were false.
On May 10, the juvenile court held a hearing regarding father’s March
and April visitation and custodial requests. The court agreed that the
5 On March 1, 2024, the Agency filed a second amended juvenile
dependency petition, removing the section 300, subdivision (g) allegation
against father.
6 Father appealed this determination in April 2024, but we dismissed
the appeal in the unpublished order of In re T.A. et al. (A170283) because his
attorney filed a brief indicating there were no arguable issues and father
failed to file a statement of any issues he felt should be reviewed.
6
modified restraining order permitted visitation with a court order and
acknowledged previously ordering visitation with father and minor’s sister
but recognized, “there’s an extended waiting period for that therapeutic
visitation.” Minor’s counsel represented minor did “want to have visits with
his father, but he does want them to be supervised. He still expresses some
concerns and feeling uncomfortable. He was very clear that . . . he has to
have someone else there.” Minor’s counsel requested that if the court ordered
visitation, that they be therapeutic; the Agency agreed with this
recommendation of supervised therapeutic visitation based on its
communications with minor. The court granted father therapeutic visitation
with minor “at least one time a week, and at least one hour per visit.”
On May 30, father filed a request for unsupervised visitation with the
children; he claimed minor was “being brainwashed by mom and family” and
“being manipulated to lie and being mistreated (beaten).”
At a July 22 hearing requested by the Agency to address visitation
because of a “series of issues relating to Father’s conduct,” the Agency orally
informed the court that on June 4, father had called minor’s sister’s school
and threatened to beat her teacher because he was not permitted to attend
her promotional ceremony. After the police responded to the school, the
teacher and the school secured a restraining order against father. The
Agency and the worker informed the court that at multiple of minor’s sister’s
supervised visits with father, he had “inappropriate[ly]” questioned her about
whether she was being abused, despite her not having made any such
representation.7
7 Prior to this hearing, therapeutic visits with father and minor had not
started “due to availability” at the referred center.
7
Father disputed the accuracy of the reports involving the incident with
the teacher and, through counsel, represented he would like to testify “and
help the court to understand what the circumstances are.” The court
declined, stating it was “not asking for a statement today”; its “biggest
concern” was that “father even knew where the school was” when the
information had not been provided to him. The court stated father “has a
right to a hearing, but the court has to make decisions in the best interest of
the child based upon the information that I have at this moment” and so
issued a “temporary detriment finding.”8 The court then scheduled the
matter for a contested visitation hearing on September 4.9
In its August 27, 2024 status review report for the six-month review
hearing, the Agency requested the juvenile court terminate father’s
reunification services because father had not progressed. At the time of
writing, father had attended two domestic violence classes after requiring
multiple referrals and had not “attended his parenting classes, declined
therapy services, and ha[d] not yet completed his psychological evaluation,
which has been rescheduled 3 times.” When father did attend the domestic
violence classes, he was asked to leave early because “ ‘he was not allowing
the facilitator to conduct the class.’ ” Father also reportedly continued to
state the allegations were false and “his criminal history is irrelevant.”
8 After father confirmed he had a pending criminal case, the court
advised, “So you need to have a conversation with your attorney about
whether or not you will testify about that here because that information can
be used against you in another proceeding.”
9 At father’s request, the court also set a Marsden hearing for the
following day, which was denied and is not at issue on appeal. (People v.
Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118.)
8
The report stated father had not “demonstrated his ability to behave in
a manner that is not verbally, emotionally, physically, or sexually abusive or
threatening,” citing his threatening behavior at minor’s sister’s school that
resulted in a restraining order. In addition, during the reporting period, the
Agency transitioned communications with father to e-mail because he texted
the worker 34 times within a “short period,” including name calling.
The report summarized positive visitation between father and minor’s
sister in May, June, and July 2024, but also noted “concerns” including father
“asking [her] leading questions” and accusing the caregiver of being abusive.
Regarding minor, the worker reported that he “ha[d] not expressed wanting
to see” father and that father “makes him ‘uncomfortable,’ and is a, ‘bad
person.’ ” Minor’s caregiver reported to the worker that she believed minor
had posttraumatic stress disorder “as exhibited by the minor panicking when
informed that his sister . . . went to a visit with their father” and “the minor
has witnessed a lot, but often does not disclose.”
On August 26, the Agency filed a request to terminate father’s family
reunification services because he “acquired new criminal charges [after the
incident at minor’s sister’s school] due to his aggressive behaviors that
include a restraining and stay away order, as well, revocation of probation
due to violating his restraining order that protects the mother . . . [and
father] continues to deny his actions that resulted in the removal of his
children.” At the August 27, 2024 six-month review hearing, father asked to
represent himself, so the court scheduled a Faretta hearing on the previously
set September 4, 2024 hearing date and maintained the temporary detriment
finding pending a future contested hearing on the issue of detriment to be set
9
after the question of father’s counsel was resolved.10 (Faretta v. California
(1975) 422 U.S. 806 (Faretta).)
The September 4 hearing was continued because father could not
appear in person because he had “suffered injuries” and had a “doctor’s
appointment.” The temporary detriment finding was maintained pending
further hearing on both the Faretta motion and the issue of detriment.
On October 23, 2024, the court clarified with father and his counsel
that father had been absent from the prior proceeding because he had been in
custody in a neighboring county in connection with multiple criminal
matters, including charges arising out of his arrest for making criminal
threats at minor’s sister’s school.11 Father’s counsel asked the court to lift
the detriment finding as to minor’s sister only, but the court declined, stating
it did not “have enough information about the criminal cases to lift the
detriment finding.” The court further explained, “I absolutely am not going
to lift a detriment finding when the father has multiple cases going on that
may be involved with threats regarding where the children go to school. I
don’t know what’s happened, but I know I need to know what’s happening.”
On November 5, 2024 and in January 2025, the court held hearings to
consider the contested six-month status review, the Agency’s request to
terminate father’s reunification services, and the court’s detriment finding.
The Agency’s 12-month status review report filed between hearing dates on
10 Father had also filed a motion to challenge the judge for cause
pursuant to section 170.1, which the court struck because, “Number one, the
challenge was procedurally defective because it was not properly served;
secondly, [father] improperly submitted the challenge in his personal capacity
when he was represented by counsel; and, third, the challenge discloses no
legal grounds for disqualification.”
11 There was no discussion on the record concerning father’s earlier
Faretta motion.
10
January 8, 2025, recommended termination of reunification services for
father. According to the report, father attended seven domestic violence
classes, four parenting classes, and was referred for a psychological
evaluation which was conducted on December 17, 2024, but he arrived late,
so the evaluation was incomplete. The report also noted father’s failure to
complete assigned courses, his removal from multiple classes, and his refusal
of therapeutic services in 2024. Father continued to contend the
substantiated allegations and the petition were false. The worker
documented meetings with father to discuss his case plan progress, in which
father claimed the domestic violence course was “ ‘really really helpful’ ” and
he “ ‘love[d]’ ” the parenting class “ ‘even though I didn’t whip my kids.’ ”
According to the report, minor informed the worker that “though his
father . . . is important, he is a ‘bad person,’ and often feels conflicted as to
whether or not he would like to have visits with [father].’ ”
But at the continued hearing held on January 30, 2025, the court
declared a mistrial because it would not be able to hear the remainder of the
proceedings12 and because the Agency represented the intent to withdraw one
of their pending motions; also, “the 12-month rec[ommendation] is changing.
There will be a new addendum report that will have family maintenance as
the 12-month rec[ommendation]. As a result of that, [father] is now going to
be contesting something different than he was initially contesting.” As to the
detriment finding concerning minor, the court explained that “Every time we
come in, there’s something that stops us from getting started on . . . to hear
information from the father as to why the court should lift the detriment
12 The judge who had been presiding, Hon. Ursula Jones Dickson,
informed the parties, “I will no longer have this job, probably within the next
two weeks,” and a different judge would be taking over the dependency
proceedings.
11
finding, and so I don’t have enough information to do that, nor at this point
would I, but I’ll set it as soon as possible for a trial date for the next judge, so
that judge can be very narrow on the things that she or he are deciding.”
On February 18, 2025, father filed another request for visitation with
minor, and in March, father filed a request to “lift the temporary detriment”
order for emergency visitation with his son because he was granted “therapy
visits with me on or about January 20th, 2024.”
On March 26, 2025, the court held a combined contested six- and 12-
month review hearing with a “new” judge presiding (Hon. Rhonda Burgess)
and considered father’s request to lift the temporary detriment finding. In
support, father testified he had completed a parenting class, attended “about
15” of the required 52 domestic violence classes, and had four therapy
sessions since the end of January 2025. Father represented he learned from
his domestic violence courses “how to be more patient” and “there’s other
people going through the same situation.” As to the incident at minor’s
sister’s school, father testified, “I absolutely did not threaten that lady” but
stated, “She started getting belligerent with me” and admitted there was a
restraining order prohibiting him from having contact with the teacher.
Father denied that minor “sustain[ed] an injury to his eye, there’s no proof
whatsoever” and claimed, “Obviously somebody is manipulating him to say
these things.” Father represented he was amenable to supervised visits with
the minor but was opposed to therapeutic visits. He said, “there’s no issues
to look into, so we don’t need a therapist.”
The Agency opposed modification because minor expressed to the
worker that father “makes him feel uncomfortable”; minor had stated, “he felt
that his father was a bad person.” The worker testified minor told her, “his
father did, in fact, hit him in his eye.” The worker was concerned about
12
father’s willingness to complete the appointments required by his case plan.
The worker also testified that at one visit with minor’s sister, father told the
sister to tell their caregiver that “he would beat her ass if she continued to
beat [minor’s sister], as he was alleging that she beat [minor’s sister].”
The Agency amended its January 2025 status review report’s
recommendation to read, “The detriment finding issued by the Court on
7/22/24, prohibiting visitation between the father . . . and minor, . . . shall be
maintained.”
At the continued hearing on April 16, after hearing argument from the
parties, the court found father not credible and maintained the July 2024
detriment finding as to minor but lifted the finding as to minor’s sister and
ordered supervised therapeutic visitation with father and her. The court
adopted the other recommendations of the Agency, including that the return
of the children to father would “create a substantial risk of detriment to the
safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being” of the children and
termination of reunification services was appropriate.13
Father appeals.
DISCUSSION
Father contends the juvenile court’s April 2025 finding that visitation
with him would be detrimental to minor was unsupported by substantial
evidence “because the Agency failed to prove visitation with Father, even in a
therapeutic or supervised setting, would adversely impact [minor]
emotionally, or that, due to Father’s conduct, visitation would be harmful to
13 Minor and his sister were returned to mother’s custody, and the court
ordered family maintenance services, as recommended by the Agency.
13
[minor],”14 particularly given that visitation was authorized with minor’s
sister. In the alternative, father contends that because minor was returned
to mother at the hearing, the “best interest” rather than “detriment”
standard applies, and if detriment was the “wrong standard,” the court’s
detriment analysis was prejudicial and requires reversal because “it is
reasonably probable Father would have obtained a more favorable result”
had the best interests standard been used. We disagree, and because we
conclude substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s detriment
determination, we need not address father’s alternative argument.
“As courts have explained, ‘[v]isitation between a dependent child and
his or her parents is an essential component of a reunification plan, even if
actual physical custody is not the outcome of the proceedings.’ ” (In re T.M.
(2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 1214, 1218 (T.M.).) The court may deny parental
contact “[i]f visitation is inconsistent with the well-being of the child, or
would be detrimental to the child.” (In re F.P. (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 966,
973.) “ ‘Well-being’ includes the minor’s emotional and physical health.”
(T.M., at p. 1219.)
“[T]he parents’ interest in the care, custody and companionship of their
children is not to be maintained at the child’s expense; the 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.” (In re
S.H. (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 310, 317.) “[V]isitation can be denied or
suspended upon a finding of detriment to a child’s physical or emotional well-
being.” (In re F.P., supra, 61 Cal.App.5th at p. 973.)
14 Father does not challenge the decision not to return minor and his
sister to him, nor does he claim that he received inadequate reunification
services.
14
“A juvenile court’s finding that visitation would be detrimental to the
child is reviewed for substantial evidence.”15 (In re R.M. (2025) 111
Cal.App.5th 119, 135 (R.M.).) “Substantial evidence is evidence that is ‘of
ponderable legal significance,’ ‘reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid
value,’ and ‘ “substantial” proof of the essentials which the law requires in a
particular case.’ ” (Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 1006.) “We
must review the entire record in the light most favorable to the juvenile
court’s order and draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence that
support it. We may not resolve conflicts in the evidence, reweigh the
evidence, or second guess the juvenile court’s express or implied
determinations regarding the credibility of witnesses.” (R.M., at p. 135.)
Father contends the Agency failed to show visitation with him in either
a therapeutic or supervised setting would “presently” adversely impact minor
emotionally or that visitation would be harmful. Father argues the court’s
reliance on the July 22, 2024 detriment finding in its April 2025 finding was
misplaced because the hearing court in April “made only general statements,”
failed to provide “facts unique [minor],” and the July finding was
“procedurally and factually inadequate.” He does, however, acknowledge that
he “cannot challenge the prior detriment finding in this appeal.” Father
asserts that if his conduct did not warrant a detriment finding for minor’s
sister in April 2025, it could not concurrently warrant a detriment finding as
15 Father contends the Agency errs by “encourag[ing] this court to
employ a hybrid standard of review, reviewing the juvenile court’s detriment
finding for substantial evidence and the resulting order denying visitation for
an abuse of discretion.” But father also states, “respondent is correct that the
court’s finding visitation would be detrimental (or contrary to [minor’s] best
interest) must be supported by substantial evidence.” We rely on the
substantial evidence standard that father suggests, but note that under
either standard, we conclude the order was proper.
15
to minor. Father further contends the juvenile court should not have
concluded in issuing the detriment finding that “even in a monitored setting,
Father would engage in unsafe or harmful behavior.”
Here, the record contains substantial evidence to support the juvenile
court’s April 2025 detriment finding. To start, the court found father’s
denials of the physical abuse of his children “not credible,” while the record
contains corroborated evidence that father abused minor and has a history of
violence. For example, both minor and his half brother told the worker father
hit minor, causing him to have two black eyes. Throughout the proceedings,
minor was a protected party in multiple restraining orders against father
arising out of domestic violence against mother. Moreover, the Agency
interviewed a number of people, including mother, minor, his sister’s
caregiver (maternal great-aunt), and minor’s half brother, who all described
father’s “violent” and “harassing” acts and history of domestic violence in the
presence of minor and detailed its apparent negative impact on minor.
Father’s communications with the worker corroborated these reports, as he
“became irate” in meetings with the worker and “exhibit[ed] aggressive
behaviors” such as texting the worker 34 times within a “short period,”
including name calling, such that the worker transitioned to e-mail rather
than telephonic communication. Father’s admitted—though minimized—
threats to beat minor’s sister’s teacher that resulted in the issuance of a
protective order and the filing of criminal charges also support the court’s
detriment determination.
In addition, minor expressed consistent apprehension when asked
about visitation with father. (R.M., supra, 111 Cal.App.5th at p. 136 [“a
child’s own wishes and statements as reflected in the social worker’s reports
are strong evidence the juvenile court may consider when deciding whether
16
relative visits would be detrimental to the child’s well-being”]; In re F.P.,
supra, 61 Cal.App.5th at p. 974 [nightmares, self-harm, and refusal to have
contact with an abusive parent are grounds to deny visits].) Initially, minor
said that he felt “ ‘kinda’ ” safe with father. But when asked if he wanted to
see father, minor replied, “ ‘I don’t want to stay with him in the van’ ” where
he would have to “ ‘pee into a bucket.’ ” At the May 2024 hearing, minor’s
counsel represented that minor wanted visitation with father but wanted
visits supervised because minor “expresses concerns and [was] feeling
uncomfortable.” After the July 2024 temporary detriment finding, minor
“ha[d] not expressed wanting to see [father] and reported to the [worker] that
[father] makes him ‘uncomfortable,’ and is a, ‘bad person.’ ” Minor also
“panick[ed] when informed that his sister . . . went to a visit with their
father,” demonstrating his fear father might harm her. According to the
January 2025 report, minor informed the worker that he “often feels
conflicted as to whether or not he would like to have visits with [father].” At
the contested hearing in April 2025, even father’s counsel acknowledged
minor’s feelings over time seemed “even more firm in not wanting to see his
father.” As such, minor’s own words and behavior constitute substantial
evidence that visitation would be detrimental to minor. (R.M., at p. 136.)
Father’s persistent refusal to accept responsibility and blame of others
for minor’s “conflicted” feelings further support the court’s detriment finding.
Throughout the proceedings and at the April 2025 hearing, father made clear
he did not believe he needed any support and denied being violent, calling
himself a “perfect, wonderful parent.” Moreover, father “minimally engaged
in his case plan” and “continue[d] to display concerning behaviors,” which led
to the underlying referral and the initial temporary detriment finding. (T.M.,
supra, 4 Cal.App.5th at p. 1220 [upholding a detriment finding in part
17
because “father did not appear to recognize the harm his behavior was
causing the minor; refusing to participate in reunification services because he
was ‘raising [his] son in the right way’ ”].) For example, in a case plan
meeting when the worker asked about father’s alleged physical abuse of the
minor, father laughed and denied hitting minor, stating mother “ ‘made a lie
saying I punched my son in the eye.’ ” At the April 2025 contested hearing,
father blamed others for his lack of visitation, repeatedly claiming “somebody
is manipulating minor to say these things” and minor’s reluctance to see him
was “absolutely false. I’m sure there’s some sort of somebody in his ear . . . he
wouldn’t say that unless somebody told him to say something like that.”
Father also expressed continued opposition to therapeutic visitation because
he believed “there’s no issues to look into.” Importantly, father insisted he
had no need for a case plan, repeatedly denied harming minor (“there’s no
proof whatsoever”), and again asserted mother had lied about his actions.
Father’s coaching of minor’s sister in their visits also indicates a lack of
progress and awareness of how his behavior impacts his children that
supports the court’s detriment finding. According to the January 2024
jurisdiction/disposition report, “[s]everal parties” interviewed indicated they
believed father and paternal grandmother were “coaching” minor’s sister to
claim their caregiver was abusing her, and despite any indication of harm,
father “continue[d] to ask repeatedly” whether the caregiver was abusing
minor’s sister “which [wa]s causing stress to [minor’s sister] and very
inappropriate behavior.” Similar coaching behavior at visitation could have a
negative impact on minor’s well-being, particularly where minor repeatedly
told the Agency father physically harmed him.
Father also failed to comply with the case plan or address his
“objectives” including “not behav[ing] in a manner that is verbally,
18
emotionally, physically, or sexually abusive or threatening,” only taking
action shortly before the April 2025 hearing and over a year after the
proceedings began. In total, father completed one parenting class, attended
“about 15” of the required 52 domestic violence classes, and had four therapy
sessions since the end of January 2025. (T.M., supra, 4 Cal.App.5th at
p. 1220; see also In re Dustin R. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1131, 1139–1140
[“compliance with the reunification need not be the sole concern of the court,
but it must be an indicium of progress toward family preservation”].) Father
also failed to complete other aspects of his case plan, including a
psychological evaluation, until shortly before the contested April 2025
hearing. Even in his eventual but minimal case plan compliance, father
continued to deny any bad behavior on his part. Thus, juvenile court’s
finding that father had “not substantially made progress in the court-ordered
treatment program” is well supported by the record.
Turning to father’s additional arguments, we disagree with father’s
contention that in April 2025 the court failed to specify facts unique to minor
to support its detriment finding. Instead, the record shows the court
analyzed minor and his sister’s detriment findings separately and explicitly
summarized the factors impacting its analysis resulting in the detriment
finding for visitation and the termination of reunification services for father.
We also disagree with father’s assertion that if his conduct did not warrant a
detriment finding for minor’s sister, it could not warrant a detriment finding
as to minor, for the many reasons articulated above that do not all apply to
minor’s sister, including father’s continued denial that he harmed minor,
minor’s hesitation to visit with father, and father’s failure to engage with his
case plan.
19
Finally, as stated, because we determine that substantial evidence
supports the court’s detriment analysis, and because, as father cites, the
“detriment” and “best interest” standards are “ ‘basically two sides of the
same coin;’ what is in the child’s best interests ‘is essentially the same as that
which is not detrimental to the child,’ and what is detrimental to the child is
not in the child’s best interests[,] (In re Jacob P. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 819,
829; accord In re Liam L. (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1085-1086[]),” we
need not address father’s alternative argument that, because minor was
returned to mother at the April 2025 hearing, a “best interests” rather than
“detriment” standard applies, and “the Agency still bears the burden of
proving visitation is contrary to the child’s best interests.”
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
20
DESAUTELS, J.
We concur:
RICHMAN, ACTING P. J.
SWEET, J.*
In re T.A. et al. (A173247)
* Judge of the Marin Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice
pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
21