In re Candice E
In a previous nonpublished opinion, we reversed the juvenile court’s 2015 order terminating visitation for defendant and appellant Gordon E. (Father). We reasoned it was not proper to terminate visitation without Father and his then-14-year-old daughter (Daughter) participating in at least one monitored visit. We made clear, however, that our ruling did “not prohibit the court from reevaluating visitation, based in part on Daughter’s input, after the monitored therapeutic visitation occurs.” (In re Candice E. (Jan. 7, 2016, B265130, p. 7).)
A monitored therapeutic visitation has now occurred. Following the visit, the juvenile court terminated jurisdiction and determined it would not be in Daughter’s best interest to continue visitation with Father. Nonetheless, the juvenile court ordered monthly monitored visitation in a therapeutic setting, with the caveat that Daughter did not have to go to the visits. Father appealed the orders, arguing visitation was only “illuso
Comments on In re Candice E