Filed 5/21/21 In re D.B. CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 D.B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, E076055 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super.Ct.No. J282474) v. OPINION R.B., Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Christopher B. Marshall, Judge. Affirmed. Emily Uhre, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Michelle D. Blakemore, County Counsel, and Svetlana Kauper, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. 1 In 2019, D.B., an autistic boy born in September 2011, was removed from the custody of R.B. (Father) and placed with his mother, R.P. (Mother), a previously non- custodial parent, under Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 361.2. After a year of services and supervised visits with Father, the juvenile court terminated its jurisdiction over D.B. and issued exit custody orders granting full legal and physical custody to Mother while providing Father with weekly supervised visits. On appeal, Father contends the juvenile court abused its discretion when it ordered supervised visitation. We find no abuse and affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY A. GENERAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION Father and Mother had an acrimonious relationship and had been involved in family law court since 2014 over the care of D.B. In June 2014, Father filed for, and was granted, a temporary restraining order against Mother. In July 2014, the restraining order was rescinded. Father also filed for divorce from Mother and requested full custody of D.B. In August 2014, Mother filed for, and was granted, a restraining order against Father due to domestic violence. In 2016, the parents participated in a Family Law section 730 evaluation due to a lack of communication and frequent conflicts. On June 28, 2019, Father was granted sole legal and physical custody of D.B. while Mother was granted weekend and midweek visits. 1 All future statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise stated. 2 The parents also had a lengthy history with child protective services. Since July 2, 2014, the San Bernardino County Children and Family Services (CFS) had received 22 child abuse referrals. It appears that most of the referrals were made by either Mother or Father against the other and involved feeding issues with D.B. All of the referrals were either evaluated out or “unfounded,” as CFS saw them as family law issues. D.B. is autistic and has sensory issues. As a result, he had ongoing problems with food and gaining weight. D.B. was “very fussy about what he [ate] and [had] difficulties with textures.” Due to his diagnosis, D.B. had received Applied Behavioral Analysis …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals