Good Day! I'll do my best to assist you. Please remember: I only provide general information and a local attorney should always be consulted.
Family code 3027 provides:
3027. (a) If allegations of child abuse, including child sexual
abuse, are made during a child custody
proceeding and the court has
concerns regarding the child's safety, the court may take any
reasonable, temporary steps as the court, in its discretion, deems
appropriate under the circumstances to protect the child's safety
until an investigation can be completed. Nothing in this section
shall affect the applicability of Section 16504 or 16506 of the
Welfare and Institutions Code.
(b) If allegations of child abuse, including child sexual abuse
are made during a child custody proceeding, the court may request
that the local child welfare
services agency conduct an investigation
of the allegations pursuant to Section 328 of the Welfare and
Institutions Code. Upon completion of the investigation, the agency
shall report its findings to the court.
If the court deems that suspending supervised visitation
is a reasonable, temporary measure pending an investigation, they are empowered to make that ruling. Many judges will make that ruling if the allegation concerns the party with supervised visitation, as it can be emotionally harmful to the child to maintain contact- even supervised- with an abusive parent.
I have researched case law and the cases focus on the sanctions for false allegations.
The closest case I could find is located here: In re Marriage
of Lynn: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14132544580703534443&q=family+code+3027+deny+abuse+child&hl=en&as_sdt=4,5
On December 8, 2003, the court conducted a temporary custody proceeding before Judge Ullman. At the hearing, Peterson stated that J. had been sexually abused for almost a year and that mother
knew about the abuse and failed to stop it. Peterson denied making any knowingly false accusations of child abuse or neglect. Judge Ullman temporarily suspended mother's rights of custody and visitation
pending an immediate Family Court Services (FCS) investigation.
Marriage of Elizabeth G. v. Gregory G (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7476699907536351466&q=family+code+3027(a)+deny+abuse+child&hl=en&as_sdt=4,5) addresses Family Code 271 in conjunction with restraining orders
, to effectively deny any contact whatsoever....
In light of the parties' mutual history, the trial court should have heard evidence other than Gregory's to reach its decision on the requested order—especially in making the determination to bar Elizabeth from all further contact whatsoever with her young son. Issuance of such a draconian restraining order was not proper unless failure to issue it might jeopardize Jack's safety. (In re C.Q. (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 355, 365.)
Accordingly, we reverse the order granting the restraining order and remand for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. Having reached this conclusion, we need not address Elizabeth's remaining contentions on appeal.
So the court basically remanded it to obtain more evidence of allegations of abuse, because they felt no contact whatsoever was a "draconian" punishment requiring more evidence.