Filed 9/24/26 In re Z.B. CA2/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 FOUR
In re Z.B., B349723
a Person Coming Under the (Los Angeles County
Juvenile Court Law. Super. Ct. No. 24CCJP02624A)
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN
AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
K.B.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,
Natalie Nardecchia, Judge. Affirmed.
Lori Siegel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant
and Appellant.
Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Jacklyn K. Louie, Assistant
County Counsel, and Sarah Vesecky, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for
Plaintiff and Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
K.B. (father) appeals a juvenile court custody order regarding his
daughter, Z. In that order, the juvenile court awarded joint legal and
physical custody of Z. to E.D. (mother) and J.D. (stepfather). It limited father
to monitored visitation.
Z. has extensive special needs. The juvenile court could reasonably
conclude that Z.’s needs were best served by the order it made. Accordingly,
we see no abuse of discretion and affirm.
DISCUSSION
When terminating jurisdiction over a dependent child, the juvenile
court may issue an order under section 362.4 determining the custody of or
visitation with the child. (§ 362.4, subd. (a).) In making that order, “[t]he
court must be guided by the totality of the circumstances and issue orders
that are in the child’s best interests.” (In re J.M. (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 95,
112.)
We review custody and visitation orders pursuant to section 362.4 for
abuse of discretion. (In re N.M. (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 1090, 1094.) “‘“The
appropriate test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial court exceeded the
bounds of reason. When two or more inferences can reasonably be deduced
from the facts, the reviewing court has no authority to substitute its decision
for that of the trial court.”’” (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318–
1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion. (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin.,
§ 8.1.) We do not recite the factual and procedural background in detail
because our opinion is unpublished and the parties are familiar with the facts
of the case and its procedural history. (People v. Garcia (2002) 97
Cal.App.4th 847, 851 [unpublished opinion merely reviewing correctness of
trial court’s decision “does not merit extensive factual or legal statement”].)
Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
2
319; see also In re N.M., supra, 88 Cal.App.5th at p. 1094.) We will not
disturb a lower court’s decision as an abuse of discretion unless the court
exceeded the limits of legal jurisdiction by making an arbitrary, capricious, or
patently absurd determination. (In re Stephanie M., supra, 7 Cal.4th at p.
318.)2
Z., born in 2019, is autistic, non-verbal, and has congenital
hypothyroidism, for which she takes medication and is under the care of an
endocrinologist. Z. lives exclusively with her mother and stepfather.
Father’s relationship with mother ended early in Z.’s life. When interviewed
by the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services
(DCFS) on October 1, 2024, father stated he had no contact with Z. and had
not seen her for over a year. Father was not aware of Z.’s medical condition
before that interview. After being contacted by DCFS, father expressed a
desire to have a relationship with Z.
On August 21, 2024, DCFS filed a petition pursuant to section 300,
subdivisions (a), (b)(1), and (j), alleging that Z. and her brother, A. were at
risk due to mother and stepfather abusing marijuana, engaging in domestic
violence against each other, and neglecting A.3
At the jurisdiction hearing on November 4, 2024, the juvenile court
sustained only the domestic violence counts and dismissed the remaining
counts. At the disposition hearing on November 19, 2024, the court granted
stepfather’s request to be deemed Z.’s second presumed father. The court
released Z. to all three parents but ordered that she primarily reside with
mother. The court ordered family maintenance services for all parents.
2 Our discussion of the factual record reflects this standard of review.
3 A. is not the biological child of father. Z is the only child at issue in this
appeal.
3
Father’s court-ordered case plan included a parenting program for
special needs children and five random and on-demand drug tests. Father
had only two visits with Z. during the period of supervision. Although
mother and stepfather made efforts to arrange visitation time for father with
Z., father frequently reported family emergencies, traffic problems, or other
issues that prevented him from attending. Father never enrolled in the
parenting program for children with special needs and only completed three
of the mandated five drug tests.
On August 28, 2025, the juvenile court held that jurisdiction over the
children was no longer warranted. The juvenile court granted mother and
stepfather joint legal and physical custody of Z. and ordered that father have
monitored visitation. The court found that based on the totality of the
circumstances this custody arrangement was appropriate and in the best
interests of Z. The court explained that because father had minimal contact
with Z., he did not complete the program to understand Z.’s special needs,
and he consistently tested positive for high levels of marijuana, monitored
visitation with father would be in Z.’s best interests. The juvenile court
terminated jurisdiction on September 4, 2025.
We believe the juvenile court acted well within its discretion when it
made its order of August 28, 2025. We disagree with father that the order
was implemented to punish him for not completing the court-ordered case
plan.
As we just explained, Z. was six years old at the time the juvenile court
issued its custody and visitation orders, is autistic, non-verbal, and has a
thyroid condition. Father did not have a relationship with Z. before the
matter came to the attention of the juvenile court and did not know of her
medical condition. Despite a court order to complete parenting classes
4
targeted toward parents with special needs children such as Z., father never
completed those classes. Father also visited Z. twice in an 11-month period.
Father contends that his repeated inability to make scheduled
visitation times with Z. was caused by several successive family emergencies.
But whatever the cause, the juvenile court could still reasonably conclude
that father had remained absent from Z.’s life and had failed to learn how to
care for her special needs. Thus, it was not an abuse of discretion for the
juvenile court to conclude it was in Z.’s best interests for her to remain in the
custody of her mother and stepfather and for father to have monitored
visitation. That determination was not solely based on a desire to punish
father for his failure to complete the court-ordered case plan, but rather on a
reasonable consideration of Z.’s best interests.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court’s August 28, 2025 order is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
DAUM, J.
We concur:
ZUKIN, P. J.
MORI, J.
5