In re D.W. CA2/7

Filed 12/18/24 In re D.W. CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN

In re D.W. et al., Persons Coming B332889 Under the Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES COUNTY (Los Angeles County Super. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN Ct. No. 18LJJP00669) AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff,

v.

Dedric W.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Philip L. Soto, Judge. Affirmed. Jacob I. Olson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff.

___________________

Dedric W. (Father) appeals the visitation order the juvenile court entered when it terminated jurisdiction over his children, Da.W. (age 3), De.W. (age 2), and De-R.W. (age 2). He argues the juvenile court improperly delegated its authority over his visitation to the children’s mother, Laquida R. (Mother), by allowing her to approve the monitor and, if she does not, requiring him to pay for any professional monitor she chooses. Father forfeited this argument by failing to raise it before the juvenile court. We affirm.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In June 2022, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) filed a dependency petition on behalf of Mother’s nine children, including the three for which Father is the presumed father. Following a jurisdiction hearing, at which Father appeared, in custody, the juvenile court sustained eight counts as to Father under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (a), (b), and (j), finding his conduct endangered the children’s physical health and safety and placed them at risk of serious harm. Specifically, the court found true that (1) Father engaged in a violent altercation with the children’s maternal aunt that resulted in Father’s arrest for assault with a deadly weapon (counts a-1, b-1, and j-1); (2) Father had a history of violent altercations with Mother (counts a-2, b-2, and j-2); and (3) Father had a criminal history based on his violent conduct (counts b-4 and j-4). The court also sustained two allegations as to Mother based on her failure to protect the children from Father’s violent altercations with her (counts b-2 and j-2). Upon the Department’s request, the court dismissed three counts alleging