In re S.S. CA2/5

Filed 10/25/24 In re S.S. CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 S.S., A Person Coming B332819 Under Juvenile Court Law. _______________________________ (Los Angeles County Super. LOS ANGELES COUNTY Ct. No. 18CCJP02932A) DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

G.S.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Jean M. Nelson, Judge. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions. Lillian Hamrick, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Sarah Vesecky, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

G.S. (father) appeals the juvenile court’s summary denial of his petition to modify its order under Welfare and Institutions Code section 3881 and the juvenile court’s visitation order that failed to specify any minimum frequency or duration for father’s visits with his daughter S.S. (born 2012). We affirm the summary denial of father’s section 388 petition, but reverse the visitation order and remand for the juvenile court to provide a more certain one. The parties are familiar with the facts and we resolve this appeal by memorandum opinion consistent with constitutional principles. (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 14 [“Decisions of the . . . courts of appeal that determine causes shall be in writing with the reasons stated”]; Lewis v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1232, 1263.) DISCUSSION I. Summary Denial of Section 388 Petition Father contends the juvenile court erred in denying his petition without holding an evidentiary hearing. We review a summary denial of a section 388 petition for abuse of discretion. (In re Angel B. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 454, 460 (Angel B.).) A. Mootness As a preliminary matter, we reject the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services (Department’s) contention that father’s challenge to the juvenile court’s summary denial of his section 388 petition is moot. The Department is incorrect that no effective relief can be granted. The juvenile court retained jurisdiction when it appointed S.S.’s legal