In re B.M. CA2/1

Filed 12/24/24 In re B.M. CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

In re B.M., B335649

a Person Coming Under the (Los Angeles County Juvenile Court Law. Super. Ct. No. 23CCJP03999)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff,

v.

SANDRA B.,

Defendant and Appellant;

B.M.,

Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Stephen C. Marpet, Judge Pro Tempore. Affirmed. Gina Zaragoza, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Janell B. Price, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Respondent. ________________________

Sandra B. (Mother) was deported from the United States when her son B.M. (born 2009) was only a few years old. B.M., who was born in the United States, remained here and currently resides in Los Angeles with his father Juan M. (Father). Mother now lives in El Salvador and cannot presently re-enter the United States. In 2024, the juvenile court asserted jurisdiction over B.M. based on Father’s physical abuse of the minor during a November 19, 2023 incident. Mother, who is nonoffending, does not contest the juvenile court’s assertion of jurisdiction or its placement of B.M. with Father. She has appealed the court’s order that family members monitor her virtual visits with B.M. The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) has not filed a brief, asserting that it is not a proper respondent. B.M., however, has responded. He argues a subsequent visitation order issued while this appeal was pending (which continues to include monitoring) has mooted Mother’s appeal. To the extent Mother’s appeal is not moot, B.M. contends the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in requiring that family members monitor his visits with Mother given his lack of any meaningful relationship with her and resistance to any visitation with her.