The CA characterized Mother
s various harsh allegations as
unproductive.&rdquo. Forexample she said,
Father cannot be trusted; his word is worthless. Father is more than a cad and a bounder, he is a con and a thief. . . . [T]he Court should never allow Father the opportunity to complete a pilfering of this child or anything else that is a fruit of the marriage.&rdquo. She also said that father engaged in cruelty to animals, frequented internet pornography sites, hired prostitutes, was excessively absent from the family home prior to separation, and treatedher poorly in a variety of ways. The court-appointed custody evaluator discredited Mother
s most serious allegation that he molested a female family member when he was much younger.The trial court awarded sole physical and legal custody of V. to Mother, with visitation rights to Father. The general orders sharply restricted Father
s contactwith V. such as by prohibiting him from taking V outside five counties and requiring him to abide by Mother
s decisions about V even if he believed they violatedthe court
s orders.Father was directed to secure joint counseling with V. for the purpose of securing a written recommendation about when Father was ready for unsupervised visits.A psychologist was appointed to report to the court on whether there was any substantial basis to believe Father would physically or sexually abuse V if he were permitted to have unsupervised visits with her.The trial court fashioned a parenting plan that began with professionally supervised visits but after eight weeks entered a second phase of unsupervised visitseach Sunday afternoon followed by two hours of supervised visitation. Phase three permitted eight weeks of supervised visits on Sunday afternoons with Father and his mother. Phase four commenced when the court was satisfied Father was readyfor unsupervised visits. These visits were to be on alternate weekends from Friday at 6:00 p.m. to Sunday at 6:00 p.m.Mother appealed. AFFIRMEDTwo vital public policies must inform child custody and visitation orders. The first
is the child
s health, safety, and welfare and in this regard,the
perpetration of child abuse or domestic violence in a household where a childresides is detrimental to the child.&rdquo. (FC § 3020 (a).. The second concern is that the parenting plan provide for
frequent and continuing contact with both parents
unless contact would not be in a child
s best interest because of a historyof abuse by one parent, as detailed in FC § 3011.Here, the CA noted that Mother resorted to
unconstructive hyperbole and judgmental, conclusory statements premised on the assumption that the trial court was obliged to credit all her accusations and statements as true, all of the time
.&rdquo. Mother speculated that unsupervised visits would place V.
at great risk
in light of the
clear and present danger that the Father will act selfishly, dishonorably, and in violation of Court Orders.
. Her contention was rejected, as was her prediction that Father would violate court orders. The trial court noted Father followed the orders by prohibiting contact between V. and grandfather and by abiding by the court
s orders relating to his professionally supervised visits.The CA cited other examples of Mother
s exaggerated arguments and rejected them because they were contradicted by substantial evidence to the contrary. The CA concluded
the trial court did an admirable job of crafting a custody and visitationplan that respects the twin public policies set forth above, advances the best interest of V., and affords mother substantial control over the child.
¶ The recordamply upholds the court
s thoughtful exercise of discretion in fashioning visitation and custody orders that protect the safety and well-being of V.
Family Code Section 3118 EvaluationThe CA rejected Mother
s argument a FC § 3118(a) evaluation should have been orderedby the trial court because there was a serious allegation of child sexual abuse. A
serious allegation of child sexual abuse
is an allegation
based in whole or inpart on statements made by the child.&rdquo. First, for a mandatory evaluation,there must be some report by the child to a person specified in section 3118 (a), or substantial independent corroboration, namely written reports from one or more of the listed relevant agencies listed in section 3011 (b).
Here, the allegation that Father molested a cousin when she was a child and he wa