In re Michael C. CA2/5

California Court of Appeal Jul 19, 2024 No. B329287Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court dismissed the mother's appeal as moot and forfeited, and affirmed the juvenile court's order denying the father's request for custody of his child under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.2.

Issues

Whether the mother's appeal of jurisdictional and dispositional orders is moot following the termination of dependency jurisdiction and the return of the child to her custody.
Whether the juvenile court's denial of the father's request for custody under section 361.2 was supported by substantial evidence of detriment.

Disposition. Dismissed in part and affirmed in part.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We dismiss mother’s appeal and affirm the court’s disposition orders.”

“The record includes substantial evidence to support the court’s order denying father’s request for custody of Kylie under section 361.2.”

“Kylie’s young age, evidence of violence in father’s relationship with mother, and evidence that father sexually abused Mia, provides ample support for the court’s denial of father’s request.”

Filed 7/19/24 In re Michael C. CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

In re MICHAEL C. et al., Persons B329287 Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law LOS ANGELES COUNTY (Los Angeles County DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN Super. Ct. No. 22CCJP03343A-C) AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

N.N. et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Gabriela H. Shapiro, Temporary Judge. Dismissed in part and affirmed in part. Law Offices of Vincent W. Davis & Associates and Vincent W. Davis, for Defendant and Appellant N.N.

Law Office of Robert McLaughlin and Robert McLaughlin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant K.R. Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel and Sally Son, Senior Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.

______________________

As relevant here, N.N. (mother) has three children, Michael C. (born April 2013), Mia M. (born December 2016), and Kylie R. (born December 2020). K.R. (father) is the father of Kylie only. Mother appeals the juvenile court’s orders declaring her three children dependents under Welfare and Institutions Code1 sections 300, subdivision (b), and removing the children from her custody under section 361. Father appeals solely from the dispositional order denying his request under section 361.2 for custody of Kylie, which father intends to exercise in New York where he currently resides. The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) filed a motion to dismiss mother’s appeal, along with a request for judicial notice. We dismiss mother’s appeal and affirm the court’s disposition orders. The parties are familiar with the facts and our opinion does not meet the criteria for publication. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.1105(c).) We accordingly resolve the cause before us, consistent

In re Michael C. CA2/5

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISCUSSION

DISPOSITION

AI Brief