In re A.P. CA2/5

DISCUSSION

Father argues the juvenile court abused its discretion when it denied his request for unmonitored visitation. Father does not challenge the court’s finding he physically abused mother in daughter’s presence. In his view, this abuse does not support an inference that he posed a threat to the children because they were never injured by the domestic violence. “A disposition order granting reunification services must provide for visitation between a child and parent ‘as frequent as possible, consistent with the well-being of the child.’ (§ 362.1, subd. (a)(1)(A).) In addition, section 362.1 mandates ‘[n]o visitation order shall jeopardize the safety of the child.’ (§ 362.1, subd. (a)(1)(B).)” (In re T.M. (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 1214, 1218.) “The power to regulate visits between dependent children and their parents rests with the juvenile court and its visitation orders will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion.” (In re D.P. (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 1058, 1070.) Although father’s physical abuse may not have been directed at the children, his conduct put the children at risk of physical and emotional harm. A parent’s failure to protect a child from exposure to…