1DCA Division 4 Oral Argument - 2026/09/22 - Sep 22, 2026

argument

1DCA Division 4 Oral Argument - 2026/09/22

California First District Court of Appeal 1h 12m 8 chapters transcribed 20 hours ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What are the main facts and procedural history of the D v. Superior Court visitation dispute?

Unknown 0:19

Good morning and please be seated.

Unknown 0:31

Okay, so let us call the first case uh that's on our calendar this morning, D D versus Superior Court. And we have one person in person and then council on our screen. Let me begin with appearances, um, commencing with uh the council for uh the Um R I guess you're the petitioner,

Louise Callari 0:57

yes. Uh good morning, Your Honors. Louise Callari for Petitioner Danielle D.

Jeremy Meltzer 1:04

And Jeremy M sorry. Go

Louise Callari 1:05

ahead.

Jeremy Meltzer 1:07

Jeremy Meltzer, Deputy County Counsel for Mendocino County Department of Social Services.

Unknown 1:13

Okay. And let me turn back to counsel for the petitioner. Did you wish to reserve any of your fifteen minutes for rebuttal? Uh yes please, two minutes for rebuttal. Two minutes. Okay, so we'll put thirteen minutes on the clock here

Louise Callari 1:25

and you may proceed. May I please the court? Uh, this court is familiar with this family and their journey through the dependency system in Alameda County. At the end of twenty twenty five, the matter was transferred to Mendocino County where the father and the children lived. Mother's Rip petition arises out of orders that were made on June twenty-fifth in Mendocino relating to visitation, conjoint counseling, and the denial of educational rights. Today I'd like to only focus on visitation and respond to some of the statements and arguments that were made by respondent. I'm not waiving any of my arguments as to the other issues, but that's just where I'd like to to focus. And even though respondent referenced many of the issues, uh the events from twenty twenty three to November of twenty twenty five.

Louise Callari 2:07

We're not here re- to relitigate jurisdiction, disposition, or termination of reunification services that occurred in Alameda County. The focus right now is. Basically on how to preserve this family. So the end of the parents' reunification services does not mean the end of visitation. In fact, courts have recognized that meaningful visitation remains the lifeblood of the parent-child relationship. It provides um Help to the parent as they approach the two six hearing. It deprives the court of valuable information relating to the family if there is no visitation. And it goes against the legislative goal of preserving the family whenever possible. Mother's here today asking this court to reverse the juvenile court's order, reducing her visitation to two hours of supervised visitation per month.

Louise Callari 2:54

So with respect to visitation, respondent makes several arguments uh regarding forfeiture, unclean hands, uh, that mother actually received more visitation than was allotted, and that it was in the best interest um to reduce the visitation. And I think A lot of this confusion arose out of the visitation order that came from Alameda County. And so at that time there was some ambiguity in Exactly. Exactly. And so in April of twenty twenty five the court had ordered up to four hours of weekly supervised visitation. There was no Like no determination of in person or zoom. I think the presumption was mother was there, it was in person, was meant to be in person visitation. Then in October of twenty twenty five, when mother's reunification service was were terminated and the matter moved to Mendocino.

Louise Callari 3:41

That visitation order remained. And the court said, you know, as is, and it was gonna be as um frequent as possible. And then I think the transfer to Mendocino caused confusion. I don't think that anyone really knew what was supposed to happen. I know at one point the juvenile court was talking about a hair follicle test. There were no requirements for mother to take any sort of do any sort of anything because her services were terminated. So at this point, it was just about we're maintaining the visitation going forward.

Unknown 4:08

Are you contesting now that? the visitation was Linked even if informally with Testing. Because I didn't get that. from your briefs. It seems to me that everybody was going on the presumption that there would be drug testing as sort of not a condition, but um to go hand in hand with visitation to ensure. you know, that mother was behaving appropriately during any visitation.