In re L.C. CA4/2

── In re L.C. CA4/2 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: June 05, 2026 Category: General Filed 6/5/26 In re L.C. CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 L.C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, E086697 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super.Ct.No. DPRI2500190) v. OPINION L.C., Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Malvina Ovanezova, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art VI, §21.) Affirmed. Law Offices of Vincent W Davis and Associates and Vincent W Davis for Defendant and Appellant. Minh C. Tran, County Counsel, Jamila T. Purnell and Prabhath Shettigar, Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent. 1  Defendant and appellant L.C. (Father) appeals from the exit order of the juvenile court, which granted L.T. (Mother) sole physical and legal custody of their daughter, La.C. (born April 2016; Minor), and then dismissed the dependency proceedings. On appeal, Father contends (1) the jurisdictional findings under Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 300, subdivisions (b) and (c), were not supported by substantial evidence; (2) the juvenile court erred by removing Minor from his care as the clear and convincing standard for removal was not met; (3) plaintiff and respondent Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (Department) failed to ensure he received visitation with Minor; (4) the juvenile court erred by ignoring the joint custody order entered in family law court; (5) the juvenile court erred when it failed to order reasonable visitation for him with Minor; (6) the juvenile court violated his due process rights; (7) res judicata and/or collateral estoppel barred the custody and visitation orders; and (8) the juvenile court erred by refusing to return Minor to his care based on Minor’s preference to be with Mother. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY A. SECTION 300 PETITION On April 21, 2025, the Department received a referral alleging emotional and physical abuse of nine-year-old Minor by Father. Minor reported that Father had spanked her. Father had called her stupid, weird, dumbass, retard and scary as fuck. He only let 1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated. 2 her eat applesauce, yogurt and pudding because he said she was fat. Father spanked her whenever she cried. A social worker made an unannounced visit to Minor’s elementary school on April 22, 2025. She had no visible marks or bruises. Minor had allergies, which caused her to experience headaches and nosebleeds. She took medication for her allergies when she was staying with Mother. Minor reported that Mother and Father did not get along; he called Mother the “ ‘B-word and F-word.’ ” Minor denied any physical punishment from Mother. Father disciplined her by spanking her with an open hand on her buttocks over her clothes. Father had hit her with a belt when she was younger, leaving marks, but had not recently hit her with a belt. She was spanked as recently as April 20, 2025. Father had called Minor bitch, fuck, dumb