Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Superior Court

Good Law
145 Cal. App. 4th 692·2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 1922·2006 Daily Journal DAR 15899·51 Cal. Rptr. 3d 816·2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 11172
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 6, 2006No. B193907California2,761 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Perluss, J.

If the juvenile court determines, for the safety of a child sex abuse victim, that contact between an offending father and the child he abused must be monitored at all times, may the court nonetheless permit the father to return to the family home where the abuse occurred by designating the nonoffending second parent as the monitor? No. The very concept of monitored visitation is fundamentally incompatible with around-the-clock in-home contact that necessarily includes periods when the designated monitor will be unavailable to perform his or her protective function. Accordingly, we grant the petition for writ of mandate filed by the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) and direct respondent Los Angeles Superior Court to vacate its order permitting the offending father to return to the family home and to enter a new order prohibiting the offending father from living in, or spending the night at, the family residence until the juvenile court determines, following an adequate evidentiary hearing, that the child will not be endangered by unmonitored contact between the offending father and the child.

*695 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.