In re M.M. CA4/2

Filed 10/27/26 In re M.M. CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 M.M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, E087910 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super.Ct.No. DPIN2400165) v. OPINION SONIA M., Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Susanne S. Cho, Judge. Affirmed. Nita Mehta, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Minh C. Tran, County Counsel, Jamila T. Purnell, Chief Assistant County Counsel, and Prabhath Shettigar, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. 1  At the disposition hearing, the juvenile court found that visitation by Sonia M. (Mother) with her three-year-old daughter, M.M., was detrimental, and the court suspended Mother’s visitation for three months. Mother argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the court’s detriment finding. We disagree and affirm. BACKGROUND I. Prior dependency and family law proceedings Approximately five months before M.M.’s birth in 2022, Michael M. (Father) filed a petition to determine parental relationship, and he requested joint legal and joint physical custody of M.M. Mother filed her own petition to determine parental relationship, and she opposed Father’s request for joint custody. The court found that Father was M.M.’s father, and in January 2023, the court awarded the parents joint legal and joint physical custody of M.M. Over approximately the next two years, the parents continued to dispute custody, and Mother made multiple unfounded allegations of neglect and abuse by Father. In July 2024, the Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) filed a petition under subdivision (b) of section 300 of the Welfare and Institutions Code after receiving a referral alleging general neglect and physical abuse of M.M. by the parents. (Unlabeled statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.) The petition alleged that “[d]uring a custody exchange, [M.M.] did not want to go with [Father] and held tightly around [Mother’s] chest. [Father] then placed his hands around [M.M.] and used his elbow to forcefully pull her away.” 2  When DPSS interviewed Mother, she insisted that Father was neglecting and abusing M.M. According to DPSS, Mother’s allegations caused M.M. to “undergo[] forensic examinations which yielded no results for physical or sexual abuse, resulting in unnecessary trauma for [M.M.]” In September 2025, the court terminated jurisdiction and granted joint legal and physical custody of M.M. to the parents. The court also ordered that the parents continue in their “co-parenting program.” II. Referral and detention In October 2025, DPSS received a referral after Mother sought a restraining order against Father. Mother had told the reporting party that M.M. “was expressing sexual behaviors” after her visits with Father. DPSS subsequently interviewed Mother, and Mother reported that M.M. had said that there were “secrets” at Father’s home and that Father rubs her vagina. During DPSS’s investigation, M.M. pointed to her vaginal area and whispered in the social worker’s ear that Father touched her there, and M.M. “took her tongue out and moved her face slightly from side to side and pointed at her vaginal area again, saying ‘Michael.’” Four days later, Father contacted DPSS and said that Mother had violated their custody orders and had not been responding on the Talking Parents app. Father had sought a hearing in the family court, which was set for the next day. On the day of the family court hearing, Mother told DPSS that she would not allow M.M. to return to Father “no matter the outcome of the hearing.” Father subsequently told DPSS that the 3 family court directed the parents to comply with the existing custody orders. Mother still refused to follow the court’s orders. The maternal aunt reported that M.M. had become aggressive over the past year and “hyper aware of her body.” She said that M.M. had pointed to her vagina while doing a licking motion, and M.M. said that it occurred at Father’s home in her bedroom. The maternal grandmother reported that Father had made several false reports about Mother and the maternal relatives. Both parents filed emergency custody requests. Mother’s request was denied, and Father was granted temporary sole custody pending a December 2025 hearing. DPSS filed a petition under section 300, alleging that M.M. told DPSS that Father “inappropriately touches [M.M.],” Mother has a prior dependency history for aggressiveness and inability to coparent, Father has a prior dependency history for inability to coparent, and M.M. is suffering from “serious emotional damage as evidenced by her increasingly aggressive behaviors.” At the detention hearing, the juvenile court detained M.M. from both parents and ordered that they have supervised visits twice per week. III. Events before the jurisdiction and disposition hearings In the jurisdiction and disposition report, DPSS reported that Mother said that M.M. had “been disclosing pieces of information about the alleged touching, often before bedtime.” Mother said that M.M.’s disclosures were consistent with what M.M. told DPSS in October 2025. Mother disagreed with the allegation that she had been aggressive during the prior dependency case. She said that M.M. did not want to go with 4 Father during the incident leading to the prior case. And Mother agreed with the allegation that M.M. had become more aggressive after being in Father’s care and had bitten and hit other children. DPSS also reported that M.M. “continuously reiterated disclosures of sexual abuse by the father.” M.M.’s caregiver reported that when she tells M.M. that she will be visiting her parents soon, M.M. “begins to scream, cry, and state she doesn’t want to see her father because he touches her in her private areas.” In November 2025, Mother had a supervised visit with M.M., and DPSS reported that Mother was appropriate, attentive, and engaged. In an addendum report, DPSS reported that M.M. had participated in a forensic interview in October 2025, and she told the interviewer that Father touched her. When DPSS interviewed Father in November 2025, he denied the allegations. He said that Mother and her family had consistently made false allegations about him, and he denied seeing M.M. behave aggressively. On November 24, 2025, Mother had a supervised visit with M.M. at the DPSS office, immediately followed by a supervised visit for Father at the same location. Mother was again attentive, engaged, and appropriate at her visit. At the start of Father’s visit, M.M. ran to him “excitedly.” M.M. subsequently needed to use the bathroom, and the social worker asked Mother to take her. When M.M. returned, there was “a significant shift in [her] demeanor.” She told Father, “‘You don’t love me because you touch me.’” Father looked at the social worker “in disbelief and expressed concern regarding the brief period [Mother] was alone with 5 [M.M.] in the restroom.” But “[w]ithin approximately one minute, [M.M.’s] demeanor changed, and she warmed up to” Father. She walked to him and hugged him. Father reassured her that she was safe and loved. Father played guitar and violin for M.M., and she “responded with happiness and excitement.” The following week, Father visited M.M. again, and he demonstrated appropriate and positive parenting skills. Mother expressed concern about Father after a visit with M.M. Mother told DPSS that she overheard M.M. crying and saying that she wanted to “‘come home’” with her. Mother also said that Father had been recording people without their consent at DPSS’s office. DPSS reported that Father’s visits had been “appropriate, affectionate, and generally positive.” M.M. was comfortable and bonded with Father, and she “display[ed] affection through hugs and verbal expressions of love.” She sometimes became emotional at the ends of their visits. Mother’s visits were also appropriate and affectionate, and M.M. was comfortable with Mother. DPSS reported that Mother “consistently reported escalating sexualized behaviors exhibited by [M.M.] over the past several months, including rubbing her genital area on hard objects, attempting to insert the handle of a toy shovel into her buttocks, [and] rolling her body against firm surfaces for stimulation.” Mother said that M.M. had nightmares while referring to Father as a “‘monster,’” and she said that these behaviors had worsened after the prior dependency case. M.M.’s statements during her forensic interview were consistent with Mother’s reports to DPSS. 6  Father claimed that M.M.’s disclosures were the result of coaching by Mother and the maternal relatives, and he said that there had been a “long-standing conflict” between Mother and himself. DPSS reported that Father had not provided a credible or plausible explanation for M.M.’s disclosures or behaviors, and he had not demonstrated insight into the severity of the allegations or M.M.’s distress. IV. Jurisdiction and disposition hearings On the day of the contested jurisdiction and disposition hearings, DPSS filed a first amended petition under section 300 adding allegations that the parents had not benefitted from services and that M.M. remained at risk. At the hearing, Father called social worker Gabriela Moya as a witness. Moya testified that when she interviewed the family in October 2025, she was initially unable to interview M.M. about her disclosures because M.M. was more focused on her toys. Moya then spoke with Mother and the maternal grandmother. Mother told M.M. to talk to Moya, and M.M. whispered that “Michael” touched her. Moya testified that she knew that Mother had filed numerous requests for restraining orders alleging sexual abuse by Father, and all the requests had been denied. Moya said that she tried to interview M.M. again, but M.M. was distracted. Moya said that a few days later, the family court ordered Mother to return M.M. to Father. Moya testified that Father told her that law enforcement went to Mother’s home, and Mother and the maternal grandmother spoke “erratically about conspiracies and [F]ather’s government connections.” On cross-examination, Moya admitted that she had not seen the maternal grandmother coaching M.M. 7  Father’s counsel next called social worker Jocelyn Munoz, who had supervised some of Father’s visits with M.M. Munoz testified that Father never behaved inappropriately during the visits she observed. She said that Father always brought activities for them, and he was very engaged. She said that M.M. referred to Father as “‘Papito,’” and she never heard M.M. refer to Father as “Michael.” Munoz was present at the November 24, 2025, visit, and when M.M. saw Father, she “was very excited and showed affection and hugged” him. After Mother took M.M. to the restroom, M.M. was crying and said that Father touched her and did not love her. Munoz then asked M.M. whether she wanted to visit with Father, and M.M. “did a complete turnaround and she was very affectionate with [him].” On cross-examination, Munoz confirmed that Father wore camera glasses to record his initial interactions with M.M. in the lobby of the visitation office. She testified that she told Father not to use the glasses during visits. She also said that she did not observe any “weird behaviors” from M.M. except during the incident that occurred after Mother took her to the restroom. Following testimony that day, the court noted that M.M.’s counsel had filed a special incident report. The report described an incident at M.M.’s school, where she said that Mother had been coaching her to lie, and M.M. said that “she no longer wants to lie,” “because she loves her ‘papito.’” The court said that it was “seriously concerned about the situation” because M.M. needed to be protected from “any more emotional damage.” The court also noted that the parents had engaged in four child custody mediations, and “contract counseling or co-parenting [was] hopeless in this case.” 8  At the next hearing date, Father testified. He said that in September 2025, the dependency court gave him joint legal and joint physical custody of M.M. He had a protective order against Mother, and a criminal case was pending against her for violating the order. Father said that in October 2025, during a meeting with their therapist, Mother said that she wanted him to drop the restraining order, and that if he refused, she would retaliate. Before that month, Mother had not told Father about M.M.’s sexualized behavior. Father testified that two months after M.M.’s birth in 2022, Mother asked Father if he wished to meet the child, and he agreed. One month later, Mother reported to law enforcement that Father “had pedophilic material” on his computer. Father testified that he had no history of being a pedophile and that the case was closed as unfounded. Father said that Mother had made six or seven allegations of sexual and physical abuse beginning in 2022. He also said that when his visits with M.M. ended, she clung to his leg, cried, and begged him not to leave. Father said that Mother had been ordered not to post anything about the dependency case, but “[o]ver the weekend, [M]other posted, subliminally, about the judge, saying, ‘[y]ou’re here to protect,’ and ‘[w]hy are these people in charge of protecting children allowed to be able to make decisions over children’s lives.’” Father also said that Mother had an advocacy page on social media named after M.M. Father testified that he and Mother had undergone psychological evaluations, and the psychologist found no disorders in Father but found that Mother “undermines information to an unrealistic standard” and had a history of making unfounded sexual 9 abuse allegations against Father. The psychologist diagnosed Mother with “Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Disturbance of Emotions and Conduct.” On cross-examination, Father testified that M.M. called him “‘Papito’” and “never referred to [him] as ‘Michael.’” He said that M.M. had never expressed fear of him, but M.M. said that the maternal grandmother told her that he was a “‘monster.’” Father acknowledged that he recorded M.M. in DPSS’s lobby where recording was allowed. He also admitted that he had hired a private investigator to follow Mother. Following Father’s testimony, Father’s counsel asked the court for a tentative ruling. The court said that it was likely going to close the case with family law orders. The court said that it was concerned that M.M. would “end up being seriously damaged if everyone around her” continued to “fill[] her head with things and talking about monsters, and that [F]ather is a monster.” The court found that DPSS had not established evidence of sexual touching by Father, and M.M. had disclosed that she was coached. Mother then testified. She said that she was seeking therapy for M.M. because her “behaviors were escalating and obvious.” She testified that M.M. was “doing things with objects” and would mention monsters, “Michael,” and “Papito.” She testified that she told Father about her concerns, and she denied telling M.M. to lie or coaching her to accuse Father. She said that the maternal grandmother had been at visits in January and February 2026 and never whispered in M.M.’s ear. Mother testified that her counselor said that M.M. probably needed therapy. Mother said that M.M. had not seen any of the service providers that she had contacted, 10 because M.M. was in Father’s custody. Mother said that she did not regain custody until shortly before October 2025. Mother also testified that in October 2025 Father sent a message saying that he would not drop his protective order. She said that she called the police every day requesting wellness checks on M.M. while she was in her care because Father accused Mother of kidnapping. She acknowledged reporting to the police that Father had pornographic material, but she denied saying that it was pedophilic material. She admitted that there was a time when she believed that Father was a danger to M.M. Mother denied calling doctors and saying that M.M. had been sexually abused. She also denied coaching M.M. during the November 24, 2025, visit. Mother acknowledged that the report from her psychological evaluation noted that she had made false accusations of physical and sexual abuse by Father and concluded that she had adjustment disorder with mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct. Mother said that when M.M. was in her custody, Mother took her to her primary doctor and urgent care for a rash and not for sexual abuse. Mother testified that after the prior case closed, the parents followed a “2-2-3 schedule,” and they shared custody of M.M. She said that M.M. first disclosed touching by Father around September 2025. She also said that M.M. disclosed touching by Father on two or three occasions. Mother participated in coparenting classes until December 2025, but she did not participate with Father after the prior dependency case closed. On the final day of the contested hearing, DPSS’s counsel requested a continuance to obtain another forensic interview of M.M. The court denied the request because 11 M.M.’s “brain and mind [had] been polluted so much,” and further questioning would be “more problematic than helpful.” The court noted there had been eight prior child welfare investigations and multiple problems between the parents in family court beginning in 2023. The court was concerned that Mother might never stop accusing Father of abuse. The court stated that it was considering suspending all of Mother’s contact with M.M. for 90 days to six months in order to allow M.M. to recover. The court found that M.M.’s statements “ring[ed] of being so coached” and that M.M. would “continue to be told to say those kind of things.” The court was concerned about M.M.’s drastic demeanor change during the November 24, 2025, visit after her brief contact with Mother. The court found that Mother was not credible and had made false allegations. Mother’s counsel joined the request for a forensic interview and argued that the parents had “historically exhibited a high level of conflict, rooting from a distrust from one another that has significantly impacted their ability to co-parent.” The court found that without dependency court intervention, Mother would return to family court and continue “drag[ging] out this case further.” The court adjudged M.M. a dependent of the court, ordered family maintenance services for Father, and denied reunification services for Mother pursuant to subdivision (b) of section 16507. The court found that Mother’s visitation would be detrimental to M.M. and suspended Mother’s visits for three months. The court ordered individual therapy for M.M. and stated that therapeutic visitation with Mother could begin in June 2026. 12  DISCUSSION Mother argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s finding that visitation with her would be detrimental to M.M. Mother argues that she did not coach M.M., and even if she had, their interactions were not detrimental to M.M. We are not persuaded. “We review the juvenile court’s finding that visitation would be detrimental under the substantial evidence standard.” (In re F.P. (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 966, 973.) We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party “and indulge all legitimate and reasonable inferences to uphold the juvenile court’s determination.” (In re Cassandra B. (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 199, 210.) First, there is ample evidence that Mother was coaching M.M. to make false accusations about Father. At the November 24, 2025, visit, M.M. was excited to see Father and ran to him. Only after Mother took M.M. to the restroom, M.M. began to cry and accuse Father of touching her and not loving her. When the social worker asked M.M. whether she wanted to visit with Father, M.M. became “very affectionate with [Father]” and was happy and excited when Father played music. Moreover, the special incident report confirmed that Mother had been coaching M.M. M.M. had said that Mother had been telling her to lie about Father, and M.M. said that “she did not want to lie,” and she loves her “‘Papito.’” Given the court’s well-supported finding that Mother had been coaching M.M., it was reasonable for the court to infer that continued visitation would be detrimental. Mother had already made several unfounded allegations against Father since 2022. The 13 psychological evaluation confirmed that Mother consistently made such allegations. And the November 24, 2025, visit showed that Mother would engage in such behavior even in the context of monitored visitation at the DPSS office. In her testimony at the jurisdiction hearing, Mother continued to deny that she had coached M.M., so the court had no reason to believe that Mother’s behavior would improve. And it was reasonable for the juvenile court to infer that Mother’s coaching and alienation of M.M. from Father were causing M.M. emotional harm. It was therefore reasonable for the court to find that further visitation with Mother would be detrimental to M.M.’s wellbeing. For all of the foregoing reasons, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding that Mother’s visitation was detrimental to M.M. DISPOSITION The dispositional findings and orders are affirmed. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS MENETREZ J. We concur: RAPHAEL Acting P. J. LEE J. 14